M/S.ASIAN TECHS LTD. vs. THE COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN

PDF · subscribers
ITR/128/1998HC KeralaKLHC01014799199820 February 2008Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act. The court's decision was based on its own previous judgments in the assessee's own case. Specifically, the court referred to the decisions reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Asian Techs. Ltd. (244 ITR 356) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Asian Techs. Ltd. (187 C.T.R. 321), which squarely covered the issue against the assessee. The ratio decidendi is that the assessee's business activities do not qualify for investment allowance as per the established legal position in its own prior cases. The court answered the questions referred against the assessee, following the aforementioned judgments. The operative direction was to forward a copy of the judgment to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Asian Techs Ltd., is engaged in the construction of dams and bridges. The revenue is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin. The assessment years are not explicitly stated but the appeal pertains to an order dated 19/5/1997 in ITA 81/COCH/85 in RA.160/COCH//1997 passed by the ITAT, Cochin Bench. The matter came before the High Court of Kerala as a Tax Reference (ITR Nos. 128 to 131 of 1998). The assessee's representative was absent, and an advocate was requested to assist the court. The dispute concerns the assessee's entitlement to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for its business of constructing dams and bridges? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued for its entitlement to investment allowance. (No specific authorities or precedents were recorded for the assessee's argument in the judgment). Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance. The revenue relied on the High Court's previous decisions in the assessee's own case, reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Asian Techs. Ltd. (244 ITR 356) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Asian Techs. Ltd. (187 C.T.R. 321).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 ITR.No. 128 of 1998() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/5/1997 IN ITA 81/COCH/85 IN RA.160/COCH//1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPLICANT:- ----------------- M/S.ASIAN TECHS LTD; COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT:- --------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS TAX REFERENCE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/02/2008 ALONG WITH ITR NO. 131 OF 1998 AND OTHER CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.R.NOs.128 to 131 of 1998 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008.

JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Since there is no appearance for the assessee/applicant, we requested Advocate Shri P. Balakrishnan, whose senior colleague was representing the assessee before the Tribunal, to assist us. Accordingly, we have heard Shri P. Balakrishnan for the assessee and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

2.

The assessee is engaged in construction of dams, bridges, etc. The question is whether the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act. The issue is squarely covered against the assessee vide decision of this court in assessee's own case, reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Asian Techs. Ltd. (244 ITR 356) which was followed in another decision reported in Commissioner of Income

-2- Tax v. Asian Techs. Ltd. (187 C.T.R. 321). We, therefore, answer the questions referred against the assessee, following the above judgments. Registry will forward copy of this judgment to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/

-3- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.R. Nos.128 to 131 of 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 20th February, 2008.

More judgments on Section 32A

All 120 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →