The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mahindra Auto Specialities Ltd

Mr.J.S.Saluja None Appellant. respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- :- :- J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. V.C.DAGA V.C.DAGA V.C.DAGA & & & DATEDATEDATE : : : 17TH 17TH 17TH APRIL,2009 APRIL,2009 APRIL,2009 P.C.P.C.P.C. . Heard learned Counsel for appellant. The Revenue has raised following three questions contending it to be substantial questions of law: a) circumstances Tribunal expenses Rs.21,19,839/- expenditure b) circumstances Tribunal expenses development revenue deduction, capital deduction? Auto Whether incurred justified disallowable though Auto case, Show nature allowable holding amounting capital Whether justified Rs.7,84,460/- case, holding Show expenditure expenses incurred Mumbai, therefore nature though places nature allowable dissallowable Hon’ble revenue deduction, nature deduction? Hon’ble market Whether justified c) circumstances Tribunal expenses development depreciation, eligible same were disallowable as capital expenditure? expenses business, Rs.17,97,600/- case, Hon’ble Car holding research Concept though constitute nature a :2:

During the course of hearing, we were taken to impugned passed Tribunal attention paragraph No.8 same. The Tribunal possible reasonable appreciation evidence. We questions failing category substantial question law. The Appeal is, therefore dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)

(V.C.DAGA,J.)