| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 15 1999 SLD 15 1999 PTD 105 (1997) 225 ITR 60 |
Karnataka High Court
T. R. C. No. 163 of 1993, decision dated: 11-01-1996
S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R. V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ
M.V. Seshachala for the Commissioner. S.S. Naganand for the Assessee.
T. R. C. No. 163 of 1993, decision dated: 11-01-1996
S. RAJENDRA BABU AND R. V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ
M.V. Seshachala for the Commissioner. S.S. Naganand for the Assessee.
COMMISSIONER OF IncomE tax
VS
GOGTE MINERALS (No.2)
Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Section: 302,32A
Income-tax----Investment allowance---Condition precedent---Manufacturing process--¬Mining operations for excavating iron ore amount to manufacturing process-¬New machinery and plant used in mining operations---Entitled to investment allowance---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 S.32-A. Held, that mining operation carried on for excavating iron ore and sequestering the same from other materials involved a very big process and there was complete transformation of the material from one form to another. This amounted to a manufacturing activity and consequently, the assessee would be entitled to investment allowance on the screening plant and electrical installations used in mining. CIT v. Kutch Oil and Allied Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 237 (Guj.) fol. Chowgule & Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India (1981) 47 STC 124 (SC.); CIT v. Gogte Minerals (No.1) (1997) 225 ITR 57 (Kar.), Hind Nippon Rural Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (No.l) v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 581 (Kar.) and Hind Nippon Rural Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (No.2) v. CIT (1993) 201 ITR 588 (Kar.) ref. JUDGMENT S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.---Two questions have been referred for our opinion in this reference arising under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the said questions are as follows: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the guarantee commission paid by the assessee is an admissible revenue expenditure? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the screening plant and electrical installations used in mining?" In respect of this very assessee in another reference, we have answered an identical question as has been referred to us as question No. 1 in I.T.R.C.No 162 of 1993---CIT v. Gogte Minerals (No. 1) (1997) 225 ITR 57, disposed of on January 10, -1996. Following the said decision and for the reasons stated therein, we answer the question referred to us in this case also similarly. The argument in regard to the second question turns upon the interpretation to be placed on the expression used under…
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