C.I.T. ASR. vs. M/ES PARTAP STEEL ROLLING MILLS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the issue involved in this reference had already been decided by the same Court on 10.02.2005 in ITR No.183 of 1987 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar Vs. M/S Kakkar Complex Steels (P) Ltd.). In that previous decision, the Court had answered the question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following its own precedent, the High Court answered the question referred in the present case against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference in accordance with this finding.
What were the facts?
This case involves an Income Tax Reference (ITR) filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar (the Revenue) against M/S Partap Steel Rolling Mills (Asr.) Pvt. Ltd., Amritsar (the assessee) for the assessment year 1981-82. The reference arises from an order dated 17.12.1986 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Amritsar Bench, in I.T.A.No.413/(ASR/1986). The core of the dispute concerns the rate of depreciation allowed on rolling mills and furnaces owned by the assessee. The ITAT had confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] which allowed depreciation at 15%, holding these assets to be 'Machine Tools'. The Revenue challenged this before the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) allowing depreciation @ 15% holding that the rolling mills & furnaces owned by the assessee are 'Machine Tools' and that the rate of depreciation prescribed in the Income-tax Rules in respect of 'Machine Tools' are applicable to the rolling mills & furnaces also? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the rolling mills and furnaces owned by the assessee should not be classified as 'Machine Tools' for the purpose of depreciation, and therefore, the higher rate of depreciation applicable to 'Machine Tools' should not be allowed. The Revenue's argument was that the ITAT erred in confirming the CIT(A)'s order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Not explicitly mentioned in the provided text, but the context implies discussions related to depreciation provisions under the Income-tax Act and Rules.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar arising out of its order dated 17.12.1986 passed in I.T.A.No.413/(ASR/1986), in respect of the assessment year 1981-82. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the order of CIT(A) allowing depreciation @ 15% holding that the rolling Mills & furnaces owned by the assessee are 'Machine Tools' and that the rate of depreciation prescribed in the Income-tax Rules in respect of 'Machine Tools' are applicable to the rolling Mills & Furnaces also?” Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly stated that the issue involved in this reference has been gone into by this Court on 10.2.2005 in ITR No.183 of 1987 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar Vs. M/S Kakkar Complex Steels (P) Ltd.) and has been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. In view of the above, the question referred is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge November 22 ,2006 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge
I.T.R No.82 of 1987 Present: None.
We have perused the office report and checked the record.
The date mentioned at the foot of the order appears to be a mistake. The same has been corrected as 22.11.2006. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge 22.2.2008 (Rajesh Bindal) ashwani Judge
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
