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

1990 Supreme(All) 402

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, R. A. SHARMA
Chandpur Sugar – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income-Tax – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Vikram Gulati

JUDGMENT

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ.

1. By this application, the assesses is asking this court to refer the following three questions under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2,16,264 for the direct feeder line of power not owned by the assessee-company was a capital expenditure ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the inauguration expenses of Rs. 54,714 were not to be capitalised as forming the cost of plant and machinery ?

(3) If the answer to question No. 2 is in the negative, whether such expenses of Rs. 54,714 were of revenue nature deductible from the income of the assessee-company'?"

2. So far as the first question is concerned, learned counsel for the asses-see has placed reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd. [1980] 122 ITR 995 wherein, in identical circumstances, the concerned expenditure was treated to be on non-capital account. In view of the said decision, we are inclined to direct the first question to be referre




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