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

1989 Supreme(Cal) 190

A.K.SENGUPTA, BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Appellant
Versus
TINNEVELLY TUTICORIN TEA INVESTMENT CO. LTD. – Respondent


AJIT K. SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS reference at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relates to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1. 973-74. The common question of law referred to this court is as follows :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a correct interpretation of Section 33 (6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, development rebate is allowable in respect of meters installed in the residential premises and office premises of the consumers ?"

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this reference are that the assessee is an electric supply undertaking. It supplies electricity to its customers. For the purpose of measuring the quantity of electricity consumed, meters belonging to the assessee are fixed at the office premises and residential accommodation of the consumers. Accordingly, in the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed development rebate in respect of such meters and the Income-tax Officer allowed the same. The Commissioner of Income-tax thought that the Income-tax Officer wrongly allowed the development rebate inasmuch as the meters were installed in the office premises or residential accommodati









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