Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.I.T. versus DR. SATYA PAL

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.I.T. v. Dr. Satya Pal - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 118 of 1995 [2005] RD-AH 5107 (28 October 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

Reserved

Income Tax Reference No.118 of 1995

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

v. Dr. Satya Pal, Shahjahanpur

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

(Delivered by R.K.Agrawal, J.)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion to this Court:-

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the I.T.Act, 1961 on the x-ray plant fitted in his nursing home?"

The reference relates to the Assessment Year 1989-90.

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present reference are as follows:-

The assessee is a medical practitioner and is also running a nursing home. During the account period relevant to the assessment year 1989-90, the assessee purchased a new x-ray plant which was installed in his nursing home. In his return of income for the assessment year in question, the assessee claimed investment allowance on the said x-ray plant. In his book of account, the assessee also created the necessary reserve required for the investment allowance. However, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee was not entitled to investment allowance because the assessee was not engaged in the manufacture or production of any article or thing. In appeal preferred by the assessee, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Dr. Vadamatyan v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 74 ITR 94, held that the assessee is entitled for investment allowance as claimed by him.

We have heard Sri R.K.Upadhaya, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue. No body has appeared on behalf of the respondent assessee.

We find that this Court in Income Tax Reference No.68 of 1987 connected with Income Tax Reference no.275 of 1991, Commissioner of Income Tax v. B.D.Mills, decided on 30.9.2005, has held that the ultra sound and x-ray machine are plant and produce article and thing.

In this view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.

28.10.2005

vkp


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.