2001PTD1410 (PLP)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus BHOORATNAM & CO.
| Citation | 2001PTD1410 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | 245 I T R 5 |
| Bench Members | B. N. Kirpal and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus BHOORATNAM & CO. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001PTD1410 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001PTD1410 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the 245 I T R 5 bench comprising: B. N. Kirpal and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001PTD1410 (PLP) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus BHOORATNAM & CO.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated September 21, 1998, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Income‑tax Case No. 49 of 1998). (a) Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Investment allowance‑‑‑Investment allowance whether can be claimed for excavator used at site‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32A & 256. (b) Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Rectification ‑ of mistakes‑‑‑In proceeding under S.154 whether Assessing Officer can verify which machinery was used for contract work‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act. 1961, Ss.154 & 256‑‑ [CIT v. Bhoortnam & Co. (1999) 238 ITR 674 reversed]. Held, reversing the judgment of the High Court, that (i) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was correct ire law in allowing investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the excavator which was used for excavation of earth at site, and (ii) whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer could not verify which machinery was used for contract work in proceedings under section 154, were questions of law which had to be referred to the High Court. CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co. (1999) 238 ITR 674 revet‑d.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Rectification ‑ of mistakes‑‑‑In proceeding under S.154 whether Assessing Officer can verify which machinery was used for contract work‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act. 1961, Ss.154 & 256‑‑ [CIT v. Bhoortnam & Co. (1999) 238 ITR 674 reversed]. Held, reversing the judgment of the High Court, that (i) whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was correct ire law in allowing investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the excavator which was used for excavation of earth at site, and (ii) whether, on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessing Officer could not verify which machinery was used for contract work in proceedings under section 154, were questions of law which had to be referred to the High Court. CIT v. Bhooratnam & Co. (1999) 238 ITR 674 revet‑d. Special leave granted. After hearing counsel for the appellant, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following two question of law, to the High Court. "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in allowing investment allowance under section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the excavator, which was used for excavation of earth it site? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the Assessing Officer cannot verify which machinery was used for contract work in proceedings under section 154 of the Income Tax Act?" Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act is allowed. No costs. M.B.A./478/FC Appeal allowed