TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1980 (2) TMI 58
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The same was disposed of by the AAC. Still aggrieved, he went up to the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal one of the pleas raised on behalf of the assessee was that the ITO was in error in not allowing the export markets development allowance. The Tribunal repelled this plea on the ground that it does not arise out of the orders passed by the authorities below. It, however, added that if so advised, the assessee could move the authorities by way of rectification and the ITO will do the needful in accordance with law. It appears that an application for rectification was made before the ITO even while the appeal was pending before the Tribunal. The ITO granted it in part. The assessee then made another application specifically complaining about ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction under this section is claimed and allowed for any assessment year in respect of any expenditure referred to in sub-section (1), deduction shall not be allowed in respect of such expenditure under any other provision of this Act for the same or any other assessment year. " Sub-s. (2) specifically speaks of a deduction under s. 35B being claimed and allowed. Obviously, there is no implication that the ITO is under a duty to allow the deduction even where it has not been claimed. The language of sub-s. (1) also corroborates this interpretation. It says : " 35B. (1)(a) Where an assessee, being a domestic company or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India, has incurred, after the 29th day of February, 1968, whether d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claim in the return. A Division Bench of this court held that the position is that the assessee had not made any claim for rebate under s. 80J in its return. Relying upon Anchor Pressings (P.) Ltd.'s case [1975] 100 ITR 347 (All), it was held that it was not a case in which s. 154 could be attracted. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to Ascharajlal Ram Parkash v. CIT [1973] 90 ITR 477 (All). In that case, the question of allowing depreciation under s. 32 was involved. Depreciation under s. 32 was allowable in accordance with the provisions of s. 34 if the prescribed particulars had been furnished. The Bench held " in what form prescribed particulars must be furnished or in what document " was not mentioned ....