C.I.T.PATIALA vs. M/S INDUSTRIAL CABLES (INDIA) LTD.RAJP.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/170/1989HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01022541198924 September 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, considering the meager amount of depreciation involved (Rs. 12,966) and the significant age of the assessment year (1978-79, making it 32 years old at the time of the judgment), decided to return the question of law unanswered. The court reasoned that the tax effect would be quite meager. Therefore, no finding was given on the merits of whether initial depreciation was rightly allowed on the cooperative store and dairy. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala (the Revenue) filed a reference application under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking the opinion of the High Court on a question of law arising from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (the Tribunal), Chandigarh Bench. The Tribunal's order, dated May 15, 1986, pertained to appeal R.A. No. 138 of 1986, which arose from I.T.A. No. 900 of 1984. The assessment year in question was 1978-79. The amount of depreciation in dispute was Rs. 12,966. The High Court noted that the assessment year was 32 years old and the tax effect would be meager.

What were the issues?

1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing initial depreciation on cooperative store and dairy which items have not been specifically mentioned in section 32 (1) (iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that initial depreciation should not have been allowed on a cooperative store and dairy as these items were not specifically mentioned in Section 32(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment does not record any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either party.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32(1)(iv),Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 170 of 1989 (O&M)

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ....Appellant vs M/s. Industrial Cables (India) Limited Rajpura ...Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the respondent.

Rajesh Bindal, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) on direction of this court has referred the following question of law for opinion under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) arising out of its order dated 15.5.1986 in R. A.

No. 138 of 1986 arising out of I. T. A. No. 900 of 1984, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowing initial depreciation on cooperative store and dairy which items have not been specifically mentioned in section 32 (1) (iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” A perusal of paper-book shows that the amount of depreciation involved in the present case is merely ` 12,966/-, as referred to in para 8 of the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh. The tax effect will further be quite meager and the assessment year is 32 years old. Considering the aforesaid facts, we return the question unanswered.

The reference is disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal)

Judge 24.9.2010 (Adarsh Kumar Goel) vs Judge

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 253 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →