1998 PLP 2601 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus ATUL PRODUCTS LTD.
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2601 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 230 I T R 415 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha and V. N. Khare, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus ATUL PRODUCTS LTD. |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2601 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2601 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 230 I T R 415 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha and V. N. Khare, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2601 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus ATUL PRODUCTS LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, B.K. Prasad and Ms. Renu George, Advocates with him) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 8, 1996, of the Gujarat High Court in LIT No. 36 of 1995).
Depreciation whether allowable on guest house buildings and other assets
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32 & 256). Held, that the question whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on guest house building and other assets, was a question of law which had to be referred to the High Court. Nemo for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
Held, that the question whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on guest house building and other assets, was a question of law which had to be referred to the High Court. J. Ramamurthi, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa, B.K. Prasad and Ms. Renu George, Advocates with him) for Petitioner. Nemo for the Assessee. The notice on the special leave petition stated that it was limited to question No.4 and that the matter might be disposed of at the special leave petition stage by remanding to the High Court the consideration of that question. The respondent has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance. Question No. 4 reads thus: "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on guest house building and other assets?" The appellant wanted the High Court to direct the Tribunal to refer four questions to it for consideration. The High Court answered the first two questions, although the application was only to ask it to require the Tribunal to refer those questions to it. In so far as questions Nos.3 and 4 were concerned, the High Court said that they were not required to be referred in the facts and circumstances of the case. What those facts and circumstances were is not clear from the impugned order. Question No.4 does raise an issue of law and the High Court ought to have called upon the Tribunal to refer its question to it for decision. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside in so far as it relates to question No.4. The Tribunal shall now draw up a statement of case and refer to the High Court the said question for decision. No order as to costs. M.B.A./1819/FC Appeal allowed.