1981 (12) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p Rim and Wheel Company Ltd., should be allowed as a revenue expenditure and no portion of it should be disallowed as capital expenditure ?" The answer to this question is covered by a previous decision of this court dated October 13, 1981, in CIT v. Wheels India Ltd., T.C. Nos. 1438 to 1448 of 1977 [1983] 141 ITR 748 and by T.C. Nos. 539 to 546 of 1977 (CIT v. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. [1982] 136 ITR 315). Following those decisions, we answer the question of law against the Department. The second question of law for our decision is as follows: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to relief under section 80-I in respect of the: sum of Rs.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... related to the priority industry and, therefore, must be attributed to the priority industry. The question really is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84. In that case, the Supreme Court had to deal with the construction of the expression " profits and gains attributable to priority industry ", which occurs in s. 80E of the I.T. Act, 1961. It may be observed that s. 80E was later substituted by s. 80-I, which is the provision under discussion in the present case. In the case before the Supreme Court, the claim for relief under s. 80E was made by an electricity supply company. It was admitted by the Department in that case that profits and gains from the generat....