2001 PLP 2618 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus PEERLESS CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES (P.) LTD.
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2618 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 178 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, D. P. Mohapatra and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus PEERLESS CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES (P.) LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2618 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2618 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 178 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, D. P. Mohapatra and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2618 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus PEERLESS CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES (P.) LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ranbir Chandra, Rajiv Nanda, S.K. Dwivedi, R.N. Verma and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant.
- S.V. Deshpande, Manisli Singhvi, Pramit Saxena and Ms. Anuradha Rastogi, Advocates for,Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated January 9, 1990, of the Calcutta High Court in I.T.R. No.23 of 1985). (a) Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Industrial company‑‑‑Investment allowance‑‑Assessee processing data on behalf of clients‑‑‑Industrial company‑‑‑Entitled to investment allowance in respect of generator installed by it‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32A‑‑ Indian Finance Act, 1981, S.2(7)(c). (b) Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑‑Powers of Supreme Court‑‑‑Supreme Court cannot assess primary material‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court holding the assessee entitled to investment allowance in respect of a generator on the ground that processing of data on behalf of its customers was processing of goods, the. Department appealed to the Supreme Court: Held, that no judgment of a Court of this country or abroad taking the view that the processing of data is not the processing of goods, was produced. It was not the function of the Court to assess primary material. The primary material, if any, should have been placed before the Income‑tax Authorities or the Tribunal the assessee was an industrial company entitled to investment allowance in respect of the generator installed by it. CIT v. Peerless' Consultancy Services (Pvt.) Ltd. .(1990) 186 ITR 609 affirmed. CIT v. Datacons (P.) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 66 (Kar.) and CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. t 1993) 201 ITR 17 (Cal.) ref. S.V. Deshpande, Manisli Singhvi, Pramit Saxena and Ms. Anuradha Rastogi, Advocates for,Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑‑Powers of Supreme Court‑‑‑Supreme Court cannot assess primary material‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. Against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court holding the assessee entitled to investment allowance in respect of a generator on the ground that processing of data on behalf of its customers was processing of goods, the. Department appealed to the Supreme Court: Held, that no judgment of a Court of this country or abroad taking the view that the processing of data is not the processing of goods, was produced. It was not the function of the Court to assess primary material. The primary material, if any, should have been placed before the Income‑tax Authorities or the Tribunal the assessee was an industrial company entitled to investment allowance in respect of the generator installed by it. CIT v. Peerless' Consultancy Services (Pvt.) Ltd. .(1990) 186 ITR 609 affirmed. CIT v. Datacons (P.) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 66 (Kar.) and CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. t 1993) 201 ITR 17 (Cal.) ref. Ranbir Chandra, Rajiv Nanda, S.K. Dwivedi, R.N. Verma and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. S.V. Deshpande, Manisli Singhvi, Pramit Saxena and Ms. Anuradha Rastogi, Advocates for,Respondents. We have read the judgment under appeal. The Appellate. Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal have granted to the respondent‑company the benefit that an industrial company gets and accordingly, granted it investment allowance in respect of a generator installed by it. It has been held by them that when the respondent-company processes data on behalf of its clients, it processes goods. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 17 which, in turn, has referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Data Cons (P.) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR
66. Learned counsel for the Revenue has been unable to show us any judgment of a Court of this country or abroad which takes the view that the processing of data is not the processing of goods. He has sought to take us back to the primary material; it is not the function of this Court to assess such primary material. The primary material, if any, should have been placed before the Income‑tax Authorities or the Tribunal. The civil appeal is dismissed with costs. M.B.A./943/FC Appeal dismissed.