- (1.) The appeals are preferred by the assessee against the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The following substantial question of law was framed by this court while admitting the appeals : "Whether the expenses incurred by the appellant-organization for availing the services of various agencies, viz., accounting agency, marketing services for introduction of buyers to the appellant and several other services for enhancing and maintaining the business could be disallowed by the assessing authorities so as to treat them as taxable income ?"
(2.) The Department has preferred cross objections being Nos. 31 of 2003 and 32 of 2003. Other group of appeals is Appeals Nos. 43 of 2001 and 55 of 2000 and Cross Objection No. 87 of 2003 and the last group of appeals is Appeal Nos. 124 of 2003 and 165 of 2003 where only one question is framed where the Tribunal has held against the assessee and confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
(3.) Counsel for the appellant Mr. Jain, while appearing for the Department, contended that the three questions which are raised for consideration are as under : "1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled for the benefit of deduction under section 80-1 of the Act on the machinery which was an old asset and was put to use by the assessee in its old unit has also claimed depreciation on same in the earlier assessment year ? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and acted perversely in holding that the forklift truck was on trial run in the old unit and which was ready for use in the new unit should be treated as a new asset without properly interpreting the provisions of section 80-1(2) and Explanation 2 thereof according to which the total value of old plant and machinery exceeded 20 per cent, and the assessee was not entitled to the benefit envisaged under section 80-1(2) ? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred erroneously and illegally in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have upheld the rejection of accounts as well as invoking of provisions of section 145 of the Income-tax Act by the Assessing Officer ?" ;