| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 102 1995 SLD 102 1995 PTD 1307 (1994) 209 ITR 877 |
Supreme Court of India
Writ Petition (Civil) No.430 of 1994, decision dated: 1st August, 1994
B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ
NA. Palkhivala and Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, Advocate, with them), for Petitioner
Writ Petition (Civil) No.430 of 1994, decision dated: 1st August, 1994
B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND S.C. SEN, JJ
NA. Palkhivala and Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, Advocate, with them), for Petitioner
BUILDERS ASSOCIATIONS OF INDIA
VS
UNION OF INDIA and others
Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Section: 32A
(a) Income tax---Investment allowance---Construction of dam, building, bridge, road and the like---Not "construction of a "Thing" or "Article"---Assessee not entitled to allowance on machinery and plant---Decision of the Supreme Court in Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 reaffirmed---Indian Income-tax Act, 1961, S.32-A. The decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. N.C. Budharaja & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 412 to the effect that the words "construction, manufacture or production of any article or thing not being an article or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule" occurring in sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, do not take in construction of a dam, a building, a bridge or a road and the like for the reason that a dam, a building, a bridge or a road cannot be brought within the purview of the words "article or thing" and, therefore, investment allowance was not allowable under section 32-A in relation to machinery or plant used for their construction, was correctly decided and does not require reconsideration. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ---- Opinion of Law Ministry and reply of Minister of State for Finance before Parliament---Not relevant---Not binding on Court---Failure of Government to instruct counsel not to file appeal or press appeal pursuant to Ministers reply---Does not reflect upon correctness of Courts decision. The word "construction" in section 31-A(2)(b)(iii) cannot be read disjunctively and the opinion to the contrary tendered by the Law Ministry and the reply of the Minister of State for Finance to an un starred question before Parliament are not relevant and cannot be treated to be binding on the Courts in the construction of the section. Nor is it the concern of the Court that the government of India, pursuant to the reply given by the Minister before Parliament, ought to have instructed counsel not to file the appeal or press the appeal. The Court has no say in the matter and failure of the Government to give such instruction to its counsel does not reflect upon the correctness of the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court on those provisions. (c) Central…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492