Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Industrial Finance Corporation Of ... on 21 March, 1989
Equivalent citations: [1989]180ITR440(DELHI)
Author: B.N. Kirpal
Bench: B.N. Kirpal
JUDGMENT B.N. Kirpal, J.
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax had, in the application under section 256(1), sought reference from the Tribunal on two questions of law which were as follows :
"1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction of Rs. 35,79,866 on account of discount on bonds was admissible business expenditure in this year ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that loss of Rs. 9,07,498 on transfer of shares to SAIL was a revenue loss ?
2. The Tribunal dismissed the said application which led to the filing of the present petition under section 256(2). Curiously enough, in this petition under section 256(2), the petitioner is seeking reference only of aforesaid question No. 1. There is no contention raised with regard to question No. 2. In paragraph 5 of the petition, reference is only to question No. 1 and in the prayer, which is immediately after paragraph 5, it is stated that the Tribunal should be directed to state the case and refer "the aforesaid question for its opinion". No facts with regard to question No. 2 have been indicated nor any connection raised as to why question No. 2 should be referred and nor is there any such specific mention with regard to question No. 2 in the prayer clause. We, therefore, treat this application as being one which seeks reference of only questions No. 1.
3. We have heard counsel for the parties and, in our opinion, the aforesaid question No. 1 is clearly a question of law and, therefore, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question to this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction of Rs. 35,79,866 on account of discount on bonds was an admissible business expenditure in this year ?"
4. There will be no order as to costs.