C.I.T.PATIALA versus KHANNA WATCHES LTD. CHANDIGARH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

C.I.T.Patiala v. Khanna Watches Ltd. Chandigarh - ITR-59-1989 [2006] RD-P&H 5451 (10 August 2006)

(1) ITR Nos. 59 and 60 of 1989

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITR Nos. 59 and 60 of 1989

DATE OF DECISION: 25 .07.2006

C.I.T.Patiala .....Petitioner

versus

Khanna Watches Ltd. Chandigarh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present : Mr. S.K.Garg, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K.Mukhi , Advocate for the respondent This order will dispose of I.T.R. Nos. 59, 60 ,101 and 102 of 1989 as similar issues are involved in these cases.

These are references sought by the Revenue against the orders passed by the Tribunal. A bare perusal of the printed paper book submitted by the Revenue to this Court shows that at the appropriate place, the question on which the opinion of this Court is sought is not even reproduced. Even after an opportunity having been granted to the counsel for the parties way back on 26.4.2006, still nothing has come out. As informed, the record even could not be found in the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate to deal with the issue by perusing the order of the Tribunal, whereby various reliefs were granted to the assessee and also in the statement of case containing the facts. From there, we could infer the question which might have been referred to this Court.

Para 2 of the statement of case, the relevant part of which is extracted hereunder, it is evident that issue raised in the reference petitions is as to whether the depreciation and relief under Section 80-J of the Income Tax (2) ITR Nos. 59 and 60 of 1989

Act (for short 'the Act' ) is to be granted to the assessee without deducting the amount of subsidy received by the assessee from the Central Government:-

" The dispute in these appeals related to the assessee's claim for depreciation on the cost of plant and machinery. In the first instance, the ITD allowed the claim for depreciation and relief under section 80J without deducting the amount of subsidy received by the assessee from the Central Government." It is not disputed between the parties that the issue raised herein is covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.J.Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 ITR 830. In the following judgments,different High Courts have also taken the same view:- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jayana Cold Storage and Ice Factory (2003) 260 ITR 430 (Allahabad),

Agarwal Industries v. Commissioner of Income tax (1995) 211 ITR 30 (Raj.) and

Agarwal Industries v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1997) 225 ITR 901 (Raj.).

Since the issue raised in the above petitions is covered by various judgments as referred to above , we do not find any reason to take a different view. Accordingly, the question is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee and it is held that for the purpose of depreciation and relief under section 80-J of the Act, the amount of subsidy received from the Central Government is not to be taken into account.

(RAJESH BINDAL)

JUDGE

July 25 , 2006 (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)

'ravinder' JUDGE

(3) ITR Nos. 59 and 60 of 1989

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.