1992 PLP 909 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus CHEEKAY ASSOCIATES
| Citation | 1992 PLP 909 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Allahabad High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | B.P. Jeevan Reddy CJ. and G.K. MatJutr, J |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus CHEEKAY ASSOCIATES |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 909 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 909 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Allahabad High Court (India) bench comprising: B.P. Jeevan Reddy CJ. and G.K. MatJutr, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 909 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus CHEEKAY ASSOCIATES). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Assessee whether industrial undertaking
Qusetion of law. Held. that the question whether the assessee was an industrial undertaking was a question of law.
Judgment & Decree
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, C.J.
It is brought to our notice that, for the previous assessment year 1983-84, the Tribunal itself has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was an industrial undertaking?" This question corresponds to question No.1 raised in this I.T.A. For the assessment year concerned in this I.T.A., however, the Tribunal refused to refer the question on the ground that, for the assessment year 1984-85, the Finance Act, 1984, defined the term "industrial company" and since, according to that definition, the petitioner is an industrial company, no reference is called for. After hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that a question of law in terms of question No.l suggested does arise and ought to be referred. It may also be noticed and it is also the case of the assessee that questions Nos.2 and 3 are merely consequential to question No.l and, therefore, it is not necessary to a refer questions Nos.2 and 3 specifically. It would be sufficient if question No.l is referred. Accordingly, out of the following three questions asked for, only question No.l is directed to be stated under section 250(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. "
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was an industrial undertaking?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in allowing investment allowance under section 32-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was, in law, justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under sections 80-HH and 80-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" The income-tax application is, accordingly, allowed in part. No costs. M.BA./1592/T Application allowed in part.