1993 (7) TMI 111

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....yr. 1984-85: Question for RA No. 176/1992—Asst. yr. 1981-82 (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the Assessing Officer to allow investment allowance of the assessee? (ii) Whether, the Tribunal has not made perverse application of the facts of the case when it held that the issue involved is debatable whereas the Assessing Officer had recorded it as a matter of fact that the assessee had produced no ice during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year under consideration? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer had made the addition by rejecting the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rcumstances of the case, the Tribunal has not failed to appreciate that the expenses which were restricted under s. 37(3A) of the IT Act, 1961, were of such a nature as could help promote the sales of the assessee and thus fell within the meaning and scope of s. 37(3A) of the IT Act, 1961?" 2. For the sake of convenience, both the reference applications are consolidated for being disposed of by single order. 3. To start with, we take up Revenue's RA No. 176/1992 for the asst. yr. 1981-82. The solitary issue raised in all the three questions is in respect of the assessee's claim for investment allowance. Assessee's such claim was not negatived at the time of framing assessment. The Assessing Officer subsequently assumed jurisdiction to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. We thus are of the view that no referable question of law arises from the said order of the Tribunal and thus decline to make reference. 7. The reference application is rejected. 8. Next, we take up the Revenue's RA No. 179/Asr/1992 for the asst. yr. 1984-85. In five questions, the applicant has raised two issues. Question Nos. 1 to 3 deal with the issue under s. 40A(3) of the Act. Question Nos. 4 and 5 deal with an issue under s. 37(3A) of the Act. 9. The Assessing Officer made addition under s. 40A(3) of the Act, which was deleted by the learned first appellate authority. The matter was thereafter brought by the Revenue before the Tribunal and the Bench refused to interfere with the following observations: "6. Coming to gro....