1998 PLP 763 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus INDIA CARBON LTD. NO. 1
| Citation | 1998 PLP 763 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 221 I T R 125 |
| Bench Members | D. N. Baruah and N. S. Singh, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus INDIA CARBON LTD. NO. 1 |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 763 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 763 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 221 I T R 125 bench comprising: D. N. Baruah and N. S. Singh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 763 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus INDIA CARBON LTD. NO. 1). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Temple constructed inside factory building
Has direct link, with business activities
Depreciation allowable
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32. Held, that depreciation was allowable on the temple constructed inside the factory building. CIT v. Associated Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (1996) 221 ITR 123 (Gauhati) fol. Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 458 (P&H) ref. G. K. Joshi for the Commissioner. Dr. A.K. Saraf for the Assessee
Judgment & Decree
Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 458 (P&H) ref. G. K. Joshi for the Commissioner. Dr. A.K. Saraf for the Assessee In this income-tax reference the following question has been referred to this Court for opinion: "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not err in facts as well as in law in allowing depreciation on the temple constructed inside the factory building?" The assessee, a public limited company, for the assessment year 1985-86 claimed depreciation of Rs.1,14,997 in respect of a temple constructed within the factory premises. The Assessing Officer disallowed the same on the ground that it was a non-factory building and the temple had nothing to do with the business of the assessee-company. The assessee being aggrieved took up the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the temple was for the welfare of the staff of the assessee-company and it was having a direct link or attributable aspect with the business activities of the assessee. Therefore, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed depreciation. Being aggrieved the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal following the decision in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 458 (P&H) upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Heard Mr. G K.Joshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, and Dr.A. K. Saraf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee. It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that the case is covered by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Associated Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (1996) 221 ITR
123. We have gone through the judgment. In our opinion, the question referred is squarely covered by the said decision. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. M . B. A. / 1231 /FC Order accordingly.