1985 (9) TMI 26

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... proposed order to the assessee on March 27, 1979. After considering the objection filed by ill, he forwarded the draft order together with the objection to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and on receipt of direction from him under section 144B(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, issued an assessment order on September 24, 1979, disallowing many deductions claimed by the assessee such as deduction on surtax, depreciation on vanaspati plant, annual depreciation in respect of new hosiery machinery, extra shift allowance on weigh bridge, weighted deduction under section 35B, depreciation on car and claim in respect of leave with wages. The assessing authority also made heavy additions on account of the alleged inflation in purchase of oil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (c) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the absence of there being anything on the record connecting the aforesaid items of expenditure wholly or in part with the specific activities mentioned in section 35B(1) (b) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing weighted deduction on the aforesaid items of expenditure simply because they were connected with assessee's export business ? (d) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing assessee's claim for leave with wages, ignoring the fact that this was not an ascertained liability, but a contingent liability and hence not allowable under the law ? Question of law in ITA No.....