SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(SC) 322

M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, P.B.SAWANT
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin – Appellant
Versus
Bhageeratha Engg. LTD. – Respondent


Advocates:
A.G.PRASAD, HARISH N.SLAVE, K.P.Bhatnagar, P.PARMESHVARAN, S.C.Manchanda, Sudhir Gopi

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. The question of law formulated by the opinion of the High Court under a reference under Section 256 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertains to the entitlement of the assessee to the investment allowance under Section 32-A of the Act. The High Court held: "The Tribunal further found that since the machinery was used in an industrial undertaking in the business of construction, manufacture or production of articles or things, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32-A of the Act. The finding that the assessee is engaged mainly in the manufacture or processing of goods and is an industrial undertaking is not in challenge before us. Admittedly, the assessee is a construction company and for the purpose of manufacturing activities performed by it, it used the machinery in its business of construction.

* * * *

It is not open to the Revenue to contend in this reference that the assessee company is not an industrial undertaking, since the finding of fact in that regard, entered by the Tribunal, has not been expressly challenged by an appropriate question raised in the reference."

2. The contention of the assessee (sic) in rel



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top