2001 PTD2712 (PLP)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus ROADMASTER INDUSTRIES OF INDIA (P.) LTD.
| Citation | 2001 PTD2712 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 451 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus ROADMASTER INDUSTRIES OF INDIA (P.) LTD. |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PTD2712 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PTD2712 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 451 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde 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 PTD2712 (PLP) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus ROADMASTER INDUSTRIES OF INDIA (P.) LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Tyagi, B.V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
- H.K. Puri, Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated May 3 1996, of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in I.T.C. No.84 of 1995). ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Export markets development allowance‑‑ Weighted deduction‑‑‑Sea freight and insurance charges whether in India or outside‑‑‑Whether qualify for weighted deduction‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Indian Income Tax. Act, 1961, Ss.35-B & 256‑‑‑[CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India (P.) Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR.68 reversed on this point). The question whether the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on expenses on sea freight and insurance charges whether in India or outside is a question of law. CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India ,(P.) Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 68 reversed on this point. CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India (P.) Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 968 (P&H) ref.
Judgment & Decree
CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India ,(P.) Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 68 reversed on this point. CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India (P.) Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 968 (P&H) ref. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Tyagi, B.V. Balaram Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. H.K. Puri, Advocate for Respondent. The High Court (see (1998) 229 ITR 68), declined to call for a reference at the instance of the Revenue of three questions. It did so in regard to the second question, with which alone we are now concerned, having regard to the statement on behalf of the Revenue made before us, on the ground that it was already covered by a judgment of that High Court in respect of the same assessee (CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India (P.) Ltd. (1993) 202 ITR 968), but for an earlier assessment year. The second question, with which we are concerned, reads thus (page 69): "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B on expenses on sea freight of Rs.12,65,266 and insurance charges of Rs:1,46,109 incurred by assessee whether in India or outside?" The question plainly relates to the correct interpretation to be placed upon the provisions of section 35B and, therefore, is a question of law, the reference of which ought to have been called for by the High Court. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside in so far as it relates to the second question and the question, quoted above, shall be referred by the Tribunal to the High Court for its opinion after drawing up a statement of case. No order as to costs. M.B.A./960/FC Appeal allowed.