High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Mrs. P.Kropivnik v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala - ITR-118-1987  RD-P&H 635 (18 January 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
I.T.R. No.118 of 1987
Date of decision:15.1.07
Mrs. P.Kropivnik ...Petitioner
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr.Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.K.Garg Narwana, Advocate for the respondent.
The following questions of law have been referred to this Court for opinion by the Income Tax Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') arising out of ITA Nos.563/Chandi/85 relating to the assessment year 1981-82:-
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that construction, manufacture or production of Ropeways was not the business of the assessee but it was only a means for transporting the timber etc. of a third party from one place to another and consequentially not entitled to investment allowance u/s 32A of the ITA, 1961?
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Ropeways were road transport vehicles as contemplated by proviso (b) to section ***
32A (1) and, therefore, not entitled to investment allowance? At the time of hearing of the petition, petitioner sought to redraft the questions of law in the following manner:-
1. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in upholding that the assembly of component is not manufacturing/industrial activity and hence not allowing the investment allowance on the plant and machinery installed in the factory premises of the applicant in Chandigarh for assembling/manufacturing of Ropeways?
2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Tribunal is perverse in upholding that the respondent is not a Small Scale Industrial Undertaking for the purpose of eligibility of allowing of investment allowance u/s 32 A and not having any factory premises and not going into the facts of the matter in consequence of the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in question No.1 though the applicant is having a registration No.53 53 01509 PMT SSI dated 06.10.1975 and a regular factory at 57, Phase II, Industrial Area, Chandigarh?
3. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that Ropeways are road transport vehicles and covered u/s 32A in the Eleventh Schedule and hence do not qualify for allowing investment allowance on the plant and machinery?
To these proposed redrafted questions of law except at Sr.No.
(1), counsel for the revenue does not have any objection. Accordingly, we permit the redrafting of the questions of law and proceed to consider the same. As far as question at Sr. No.(1) is concerned, the same does not arise out of order of the Tribunal, there being no factual matrix available on record.
The questions have already been gone into in the case of the ***
assessee for the assessment year 1980-81 in the judgment of this Court passed today in ITR No.117 of 1987, wherein the questions referred have been answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue For the reasons stated in the above referred case, the questions referred are answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue (Rajesh Bindal)
January 15 ,2007 (M.M.Kumar)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.