Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 605 2001 SLD 605 2001 PTD 3678 (2000) 241 ITR 295
Madras High Court
Tax Case No.654 of 1985 (Reference No.354 of 1985), decision dated: 24-12-1997
R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND MRS. A. SUBBULAKSHMY, JJ
S.A. Balasubrmanian for the Assessee. C.V. Rajan for the Commissioner.

UNITED BLEACHERS LTD.

VS

. COMMISSIONER OF Income Tax (No.2)

Law: Income Tax Act, 1961

Section: 32,32A

(a) Income-tax--Depreciation---Extra-shift allowance---Extra-shift allowance to be calculated on the basis of days during which concern actually worked double shift or triple shift---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32. Extra-shift allowance has to be calculated on the basis of the number of days during which concern had actually worked double shift or triple shift and not on the basis of the number of days a particular item of machinery or plant had worked double shift. South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1997)227 ITR 286 (SC) fol. (b) Income-tax--Investment allowance---Finding that assessee did not manufacture or produce articles ---Assessee not entitled to investment allowance---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32A. The Tribunal recorded its finding that the assessee was not manufacturing or producing articles. Moreover, the High Court had held in the assessee's own case hi earlier years that it was not entitled to investment allowance. Hence, for the assessment year 1979-80 the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance. CIT v. United Bleachers Ltd. (2000) 241 ITR 291 (Mad.) and United Bleachers Ltd. v. CIT (No. 1) (2000) 241 ITR 293 (Mad.) fol. JUDGMENT N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.--- At the instance of the assessee, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for, our consideration under section 256(I) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1979-80: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was right in holding that the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes should be followed by the Income-tax Officer and the assessee should be granted extra-shift allowance accordingly?" The assessee is a company in which the public are substantially interested. In so far as the first question of law that is referred to for our consideration is concerned the Appellate Tribunal recorded its finding that the assessee was not entitled to investment…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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