High CourtsDivision Bench(1991) 01 DEL CK 0019

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Superior Air Products Ltd.

Delhi High Court · Decided on 15 January 1991

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Duggal, J · B.N. Kirpal, J
CASE NUMBER
ITC 38 of 1986 and 132 of 1989

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 287 words

By The Court

1.

The petitioner, in respect of the asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79, seeks reference of the following question to this Court :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed company was entitled to deduction in respect of the revenue expenditure even though the production had not commenced during the relevant previous year ?"

2.

As is evident from the aforesaid question, the point involved is whether the assessed had started production and had commenced business. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that in respect of the earlier year, namely asst. yr. 1976-77, the Tribunal vide its order dated 25th May, 1981 had come to the conclusion that the assessed had set up the business as on 1st June, 1975 i.e. relevant to the asst yr. 1976-77. Mr. Sharma states that the aforesaid finding has been accepted by the Department and no reference application was filed in respect of the asst. yr. 1976-77. The position, Therefore, is that if the finding of the Tribunal had become conclusive, namely that in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1976-77 business had been commenced by the assessed, it must, Therefore, follow that for the subsequent years also, with which we are concerned, namely asst. yrs. 1977-78 and 1978-79, the business continued or had already commenced. This is a fact which has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while concluding that the petitioner was entitled to deduction of the expenses claimed by it. In our opinion, no question of law arises and the conclusion of the Tribunal is a finding of fact. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.