REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Appellant

V/S

BELPAHAR REFRACTORIES LTD. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CITY OF LONDON CONTRACT CORPORATION V. STYLES [REFERRED TO]
ALLIANZA COMPANY V. BELL [REFERRED TO]
ATHERTON V. BRITISH INSULTED AND HELSBY CABLES LTD. [REFERRED TO]
USHER'S CASE [REFERRED TO]
VALLAMBROSA RUBBER COMPANY V. FARMER [REFERRED TO]
JOHN SMITH AND SON V. MOORE H.M. INSPECTOR OF TAXES [REFERRED TO]
PONDICHERRY RAILWAY CO. LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: BENARSIDAS JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE V. GRANITE CITY STEAMSHIP COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
REGENT OIL CO. LTD. V. STRICK INSPECTOR OF TAXES [REFERRED TO]
GOLDEN HORSE SHOE NEW LTD. V. THURGOOD H.M. INSPECTOR OF TAXES [REFERRED TO]
VAN DEN BERGHS LTD. V. CLARK H.M. INSPECTOR OF TAXES [REFERRED TO]
ASSAM BENGAL CEMENT CO LIMITED VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
GOTAN LIME SYNDICATE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJASTHAN AND DELHI [REFERRED TO]
TRAVANCORE SUGARS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY 1 BOMBAY VS. CIBA OF INDIA LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RUPSA RICE MILL [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SARADA BINDING WORKS [REFERRED TO]
BRITISH SUGAR MANUFACTURERS, LTD VS. HARRIS (INSPECTOR OF TAXES) [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON applications of the revenue made under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as " the Act") the Tncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench, has stated these cases and referred the following questions for the opinion of the court:

(2.) IN regard to the assessment year 1963-64, the following question has also been referred :

(3.) WE shall first examine the tenability of the claim for depreciation and development rebate in respect of the technical know-how report and the contributions made to the hospitals. The Tribunal has found in the assessment year 1963-64 that the assessee claimed under the head of operational and other expenses a sum of Rs. 1,25,190. Out of this amount, the Income-tax Officer found that Rs. 481 had been spent in connection with execution of the agreement relating to the use by the assessee in their factory at Belpahar of the patent devised by one Mr. Russel P. Hauer. The balance amount had been paid for preparation of the technical know-how report as per Clause 5(a) of the agreement dated December 12, 1961. The Income-tax Officer treated this as a capital expenditure and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld that conclusion. The Tribunal in paragraph 28 of its appellate decision came to hold:

Click here to view full judgment.

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. BELPAHAR REFRATORIES LIMITED

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address