JUDGMENT - S.H. KAPADIA, J.:---Both the above appeals raise common questions of law and, therefore, they were heard together on 7th August, 2002.

2. The questions of law framed by the department in the memo of appeal are as follows:---

"I. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) allowing investment allowance on technical know how fees when as per the provisions of section 35-AB technical know fee is allowable as revenue expenditure in 6 yearly equal installments?

II. Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) allowing the assessee's claim in respect of provision for bad and doubtful debts and interest thereon, even though the same was not written off and no debt was made to the profit and a loss account and no credit to the debtors account and the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) were not attracted?."

3. For the sake of convenience facts in Appeal No. 1303 of 2000 are mentioned hereinbelow.

4. On 3-5-1988, a revised return was filed by the assessee for Rs. 26,97,495/- in respect of the accounting year 1987-88 cor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document