2001 PLP 2448 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus MYSORE MINERALS LTD.
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2448 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 247 I T R 341 |
| Bench Members | S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal and S.N. Variava, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus MYSORE MINERALS LTD. |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2448 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2448 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 247 I T R 341 bench comprising: S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal and S.N. Variava, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2448 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus MYSORE MINERALS LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
- Ms. Asha Gopalan Nir for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated May 28, 1998 of the Karnataka High Court in C.P. No.630 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Investment allowance‑‑‑Machinery employed in extracting granite, cutting and polishing it‑‑‑Whether entitled to investment allowance‑ Question of law‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32A & 256(2). Held, that the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that investment allowance was allowable on the machinery employed in the process of extraction of granite from quarry, cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them was a question of law. CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 461 (Kar) and Shankar Construction Co. v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 463 (Kar.) ref.
Judgment & Decree
Held, that the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that investment allowance was allowable on the machinery employed in the process of extraction of granite from quarry, cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them was a question of law. CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 461 (Kar) and Shankar Construction Co. v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 463 (Kar.) ref. Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nir for Respondent. The revenue is in appeal against the refusal by the High Court to call for a reference under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, of the following question proposed by it: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that investment allowance is allowable on the machinery' employed in the process of extraction of granite from quarry, cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them?" The High Court declined to call for a reference because the answer to it was covered by its decision in the case of the assessee itself ‑‑‑CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (1994) 205 ITR 461 (Kar.). The judgment of the High Court in the earlier case, in turn, was based on its earlier decision in Shankar Construction Co. v. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 463 (Ka'.) That, as the name indicates was a company engaged in the business of construction and it was the principle of that judgment which the High Court applied. We think, in the circumstances, that a question of law arises that requires the consideration of the High Court. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to refer to the High Court for its consideration the question set out above, having, drawn up a statement of case. No order as to costs. M.B.A./989/FC Appeal allowed.