- (1.) Questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, this appeal has been filed. The questions raised before the High Court are as follows: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in holding that the unpaid amount of bottling fee has, on furnishing of the bank guarantee, to be treated as actual payment and accordingly allowing the deduction in respect of the same under Section 43B of the Act, even though the sum has not been actually paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in allowing the depreciation on research & development assets which related to the closed business of fast food division/unit of the assessee-company as such not used during the previous year (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the I.T.A.T. was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,77,887/- being made treating the expenditure incurred in purchase of new transformer as capital expenditure even when the old transformer still exists in the blocks of asset and not sold, discarded or demolished or destroyed
(2.) The dispute in essence related to the applicability of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) The High Court held that the provision has no application.
(3.) The dispute relates to the assessment year 1992-93. So far as the first two questions are concerned, we have dealt with the issues in Civil Appeal No. 3511 of 2007 relating to the assessment year 1991-92. Therefore, the answers given in respect of those questions shall apply so far as the present assessment year is concerned.;