Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.I.T. versus M/S KHAZANI DEVI CLOD STORAGE

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.I.T. v. M/S Khazani Devi Clod Storage - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 71 of 1994 [2005] RD-AH 863 (24 March 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

I.T.R. No. 71 of 1994

CIT, Meerut v. M/s. Khazani Devi Cold Storage, Jahangirabad.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi  has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) 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 directing to allow set off of brought forward investment allowance against the income of the year under consideration while the ITAT itself held that investment allowance is not allowable to the assessee as it did not produce any article or thing?"

The Reference relates to the Assessment year 1984-85.

We have heard Sri A.N.Mahajan learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Sri M.Manglik has filed his appearance on behalf of the respondent assessee.

The controversy raised in the present reference is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi  Cold Storage P.Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1991) 191 ITR 656 wherein it has held that a cold storage does not produce any article or things, therefore, it is not an ''industrial company'.  In this view of the matter the investment allowance under Section 32 A is not admissible to cold storages.

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

24.3.2005

MZ.


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.