1984 (11) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er s. 35B of the Act on expenses of Rs. 2,220 for export inspection fees. The ITO, however, did not accept these claims made by the assess company while completing the assessment. When the matter went up in appeal, the CIT(A) agreed with the ITO on both of these issues and refused to interfere. The assessee-company has, therefore, come up in the present appeal before us. 3. The assessee's ld. counsel, Dr. Shah submitted to us that the retrospective amendment of s. 80J of the Act brought about by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 w.e.f. 1st April, 1972 had been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submitted that in these circumstances, it was not open to the revenue authorities to act on the retrospective amendment of s. 80J of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d from the capital employed within the meaning of s. 80J was an interim order an that too not in the assessee's case. He, therefore, submitted that on the issue of whether the borrowed capital should be included in the capital employed for the purpose of s. 80J the matter should be decided in accordance with the retrospective amendment of s. 80J brought about the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, w.e.f. 1st April, 1972. 6. Shri Roongta read to us cl. (c) of r. 6AA in order to point out that even under the activities prescribed under s. 6AA by the IT (Eighth Amendment) Rules, 1981, w.e.f. 1st Aug., 1981, the weighted deduction would have been admissible on maintenance of a laboratory or other facilities for quality control or inspection of goods ....