TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (3) TMI 20
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ees as regards the assessee's shares had not been laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessee's business? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the rental income derived in respect of factory building No. 2 was chargeable under the head `Income from house property' and that no depreciation was allowable in respect thereof under section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (3) If the answer to question No. 2 is in the negative whether the Tribunal was correct in law in invoking the provisions of section 32(1) read with section 38(2) of the Income-tax Act, while holding that although the factory building was a business asset no depreciatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as 7 out of 8 questions are covered by the decisions of this court or of the Supreme Court. Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 7 are covered by the decision of this court in the case of the assessee itself in respect of the previous year. The said decision is in CIT v. New India Industries Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 208 (Guj). Question No. 3 which is dependent upon the answer to question No. 2 is not required to be answered in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. New India Industries Ltd. [1993] 201 ITR 208 (Guj). Question No. 4 is also covered by the decision of this court in the case of the assessee itself in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74. That was in Income-tax References Nos. 74, 74A and 74B of 1980 decided on October 14, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tationery and freight and interest charges for the exported goods. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner did not permit the assessee to raise this additional point following the decision of the Supreme Court , in Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures P. Ltd. [1978] 111 ITR 1. The Tribunal also held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in refusing to allow the assessee to raise this additional ground as the consideration of that additional ground would have required further material to be collected. What is contended by learned counsel for the assessee is that the Tribunal has not correctly interpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Gurjargravures' case [1978] 111 ITR 1. Moreover, the Supreme Court in jute Corporation of Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with all the plenary powers which the subordinate authority may have in the matter. There appears to be no good reason and none was placed before us to justify curtailment of the power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in entertaining an additional ground raised by the assessee in seeking modification of the order of assessment passed by the Income-tax Officer." After referring to its earlier decision in Gurjargravures case [1978] 111 ITR 1, the Supreme Court has further observed that the said decision does not rule out a case for raising an additional ground before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner if the ground so raised could not have been raised at that particular stage when the return was filed or when the assessment-order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....z., foreign tour expenses, subscription paid to engineering export promotion council and salary paid to the staff. Thus, material in respect of the additional claim was already there on the record. What the assessee did before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was to claim an additional amount by way of weighted deduction under three heads, viz., salary paid to some members of the staff, printing and stationery and freight and interest charges paid in respect of those exports. Thus, this was a case where, though no formal claim was made earlier, the material in respect of it was on the record. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, therefore, ought to have permitted the assessee to raise this additional point and the Tribunal was also wro....