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

1990 Supreme(Cal) 431

A.K.SENGUPTA, BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Appellant
Versus
SHAW WALLACE AND CO LTD. – Respondent


AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1979-80, the following question of law has been referred to this court :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the business carried on by the assessee in its computer division with the aid of computer system is an industrial undertaking which satisfies the conditions contained in Section 32a (2) (b) (iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

( 2 ) SHORTLY staled, the facts are that the assessee-company claimed investment allowance on new plant and machinery installed in the computer division of the assessee-company. A sum of Rs. 99,006 consisting of Rs. 89,762 being the investment allowance was claimed in respect of Madras Computer Centre and Rs. 9,244 relating to the machinery installed in the Calcutta Computer Division. The Income-tax Officer, following the assessment order for the assessment year 1975-76, held that the computer being in the nature of an office appliance is not entitled to the investment allowance under Section 32a (2) (b) of the Act.

( 3 ) THE Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ), whi























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