Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.I.T. versus M/S G. COLD STORAGE

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.I.T. v. M/S G. Cold Storage - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 56 of 1991 [2005] RD-AH 1096 (20 April 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

COURT NO.37

INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.56 OF 1991

The Commissioner of Income-tax, Meerut. ....Applicant

Versus

M/s Govind Cold Storage and General

Mills, Muzaffarnagar. ....Respondent

...............

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred to following question of law under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion of this Court.

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessment order made by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner granting Investment Allowance in respect of plant and machinery installed in a cold storage was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue ?"

The present Reference relates to the Assessment Year 1982-83.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:

We find that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Cold Storage P. Ltd. Vs. CIT, reported in 191 ITR, 656 has held that a cold storage is not entitled for investment allowance under section 32-A of the Act. Thus the order passed by Inspecting Assistant Commissioner granting investment allowance under section 32-A of the act was rightly held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of Revenue and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dt.20.04.2005

R./


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.