2001 PLP 2688 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus RATNAM POULTRY (P.) LTD.
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2688 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 15 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, Ms. Ruma Pal and S. N. Variava, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus RATNAM POULTRY (P.) LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2688 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2688 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 15 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, Ms. Ruma Pal and S. N. Variava, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2688 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus RATNAM POULTRY (P.) LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor‑General (Neera Gupta and Ms. Sushina Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated June 16, 1998 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in I.T.C. No.20 of 1998). (a) Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑New industrial undertaking in backward area‑‑‑Industrial undertaking‑‑ Special deductions‑‑‑Whether sale of eggs and birds is activity of industrial undertaking under Ss. 80HH & 80‑I‑‑‑Issue covered by decision in CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 174 (SC) Tribunal to refer question and High Court to answer accordingly‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.80HH & 80‑I. (b) Income‑tax‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Depreciation‑‑‑Plant‑‑‑Poultry sheds whether constitute plant‑‑‑Whether entitled to a higher‑ rate of depreciation‑‑‑Question of law‑‑ Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32 & 256(2). Held, (i) that the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sale of eggs and birds by the assessee constituted income of an industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing deductions under sections 80HH and 80‑I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered by the decision in CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 174 (SC). (ii) That the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred ‑ in law in treating the poultry sheds as "plant" and allowing a higher rate of depreciation was a question of law. The Supreme Court accordingly directed reference of both questions saying that the High Court might answer the first' in the manner stated above. CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 174 (SC) ref.
Judgment & Decree
Held, (i) that the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sale of eggs and birds by the assessee constituted income of an industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing deductions under sections 80HH and 80‑I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was covered by the decision in CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 174 (SC). (ii) That the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had erred ‑ in law in treating the poultry sheds as "plant" and allowing a higher rate of depreciation was a question of law. The Supreme Court accordingly directed reference of both questions saying that the High Court might answer the first' in the manner stated above. CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 174 (SC) ref. R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor‑General (Neera Gupta and Ms. Sushina Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Leave granted. Two questions were proposed by the Revenue for reference to the High Court for consideration. They read thus: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sale of eggs and birds by the assessee constitutes income of an industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing deductions under sections 80HH and 80‑I of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in treating the poultry sheds as 'plant' and allowing a higher rate of depreciation?" The High Court, declined to order the reference and the Revenue is in appeal. The first question is now covered by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (Pvt.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR
174. The second question may not be so covered. It is, therefore, appropriate to direct the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal to refer both questions to the High Court. The High Court may answer the first in the manner stated above and consider the second question. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Tribunal shall now make a reference to the High Court of the two questions, set out above. No order as to costs. M.B.A./935/FC Appeal allowed.