CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsFull Bench(1998) 11 KL CK 0061

OOPPOOTTIL KURIAN and CO. PVT. LTD. vs COMWSSIONER OF INCOWM TAX

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 18 November 1998 · Citation: (1999) 153 CTR 316

HON’BLE JUDGES
Om Prakash, C.J · J.B. Koshy, J
CASE NUMBER
O.P. No. 13673 of 1998
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 364 words

OM PRAMASH, C.J.

By this application made under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the assessee requires us to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions relating to the asst. yrs. 1987-88 and 1988-89 for the opinion of this Court :

(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not entertaining the additional grounds as referred in the order of the Tribunal?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the additional grounds of appeal is on an issue which was not the subject-matter of appeal before the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority?

(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest paid on money borrowed by which the property constructed is not allowable deduction, since such interest was not payable to the partners of United Investment Corporation by the assessee-company in whose hands the income from property is computed?

(M Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in disallowing the claim of interest in spite of it finding allowed the municipal tax not paid by the assessee, but paid by United Investment Corporation of Rs. 17,632 in computing the income from property as stated in p. 5 of the order of the Tribunal?

(v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the interest paid by United Investment Corporation to its partners on money borrowed for the building is not allowable, in spite of the fact that the rent, which is not received by the petitioner company, but received by United Investment Corporation has been made the subject-matter of assessment?"

2.

Inasmuch as in our opinion above question Nos. (i) and (iii) are questions of law, we direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the said two questions only for the opinion of this Court.

The application is accordingly disposed of.