2001 PLP 2751 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF. INCOME‑TAX Versus COOPERATIVE SUGARS LTD
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2751 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 239 I T R 908 |
| Bench Members | Om Prakash, C.J. and J. B. Koshy, J |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF. INCOME‑TAX Versus COOPERATIVE SUGARS LTD |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2751 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2751 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 239 I T R 908 bench comprising: Om Prakash, C.J. and J. B. Koshy, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2751 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF. INCOME‑TAX Versus COOPERATIVE SUGARS LTD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner.
- B. S. Krishnan, Senior Advocate and P.R. Raman and K. Anand for the Assessee.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Capital or revenue expenditure‑‑‑Expenditure on maintenance of machinery‑‑‑ Revenue expenditure‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961,.S.37. Held, that, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure incurred by the assessee under the head "Machinery maintenance" was revenue in nature and was an allowable deduction. C.I.T. v. Cooperative Sugars Ltd: (1999)235 ITR 343 (Ker.) fol. P.K.R. Menon, Senior Advocate and N. R. K. Nair for the Commissioner. B. S. Krishnan, Senior Advocate and P.R. Raman and K. Anand for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
(c) Kirloskar machine pump with sleeve 26,938 (d) Cavity lime water pump 11,244 (e) Sulphur furnace 85,844 (f)? Kirloskar 180 KW 10 HP motor. 1,64,027 (g) Kirloskar injection motor 43,072 (h) Welding rejector model 41,130 (i) Replacement of chimney 79,000 (j) Oil Pump 61,577 Total 8,40,542 In the course of arguments before the Appellate Tribunal, both the representatives of the parties categorically stated that the controversy arising in this case for the assessment year 1984‑85 would be governed by the decision in the case of the assessee relating to the assessment year 1983‑84, in which an identical question was involved. The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, relying on its earlier decision relating to the assessment year 1983‑84, in which it took the view that the expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery was revenue in nature, held that the expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery was revenue expenditure. At the instance of the Revenue, an identical question was referred to this Court for opinion for the assessment year 1983‑
84. Both references relating to the assessment years 1983‑84 and 1984‑85 came to be heard together before us. In the reference relating to the assessment year 1983‑84, we accepted the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal that the expenditure incurred on replacement of machinery was in the nature of revenue. Following the said judgment, we answer the question in this reference in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. M.B.A./276/FC ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reference answered.