COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BUHLER INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: -

(2.) IN the light of the aforesaid judgment, as the first substantial question of law involved in this appeal is identical. It is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

(3.) THERE is no quarrel with the said legal position. In the instant case deduction was not claimed on the ground that it is a revenue expenditure. The deduction was claimed on the ground that Section 35D provides for amortization of preliminary expenses in respect of fees paid to the Registrar of Companies and expenditure incurred towards public subscription of shares. Once the condition of Section 35D is fulfilled, the assessee is entitled to the deduction. That is precisely what, the Tribunal has held. We do not see any error in the finding of the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reason, the second substantial question of law framed is also answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.