Law:

Section:

Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Reference - Question of fact - Whether where Tribunal has passed an order following decision of High Court in another case, application under section 256(2) could be rejected - Held, yes FACTS The Tribunal held that the capital subsidy received by the assessee during the year should not be deducted from the cost of plant and machinery for the purpose of development rebate, initial depreciation, depreciation, etc. While doing so, the Tribunal had actually enlarged the scope of the relief already granted, providing relief regarding development rebate and initial depreciation as well. It further refused to make reference under section 256(1) following the decision in CIT v. Bhandari Capacitors (P.) Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 647/ 34 Taxman 91 (MP). On an application under section 256(2) : HELD A Division Bench of the High Court in CWT v. Smt. Usha Devi [1990 ] 183 ITR 75/ 48 Taxman 166 held that where the Tribunal has passed an order following the decision of the High Court in another case, the Court would be justified in rejecting an application under section 256(2 ) and pendency of the point before the Supreme Court is no ground for allowing the application. In view of this, no referable question of law arose out of the Tribunal's order. CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Bhandari Capacitors (P.) Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 647 / 34 Taxman 91 (MP) and CWT v. Smt Usha Devi [1990] 183 ITR75/48Taxman 166 (MP). V.S. Samvatsar for the Applicant A.M. Mathur for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Kokje, J.-is an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Commissioner, Bhopal, praying for…

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