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

2005 Supreme(All) 1894

R.K.AGRAWAL, PRAKASH KRISHNA
Commissioner of Income-tax – Appellant
Versus
Radla Machinery Export – Respondent


( 1 ) THESE two references under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are at the instance of the Department in respect of the same assessee for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. In reference No. 17 of 1991 the following question of law has been referred: whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessees claim of investment allowance under Section 32a on computer was allowable ?

( 2 ) WHEREAS in Reference No. 251 of 1992 the following question of law has been referred: whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessees claim for investment allowance under Section 32a as well as additional depreciation on computer was allowable ?

( 3 ) THE assessee is a registered firm and was engaged in the business of pumps and electrical motors and was sole distributor of Jyoti Pump and most of its supplies were made to the government Department. It installed a computer. During the assessment year 1982-83 it claimed that the computer is a plant and would qualify for investment allowance under Section 32a of the Income-tax Act. The said






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