Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P.-i Vs. Bhooratnam and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 3014 of 1999
Judge
Reported in2000(245)ITR5; 2000(9)SCC532; 2000(163)CTR420; 2001(116)TAXMAN8
ActsIncome-tax Act - Section 32A
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax, A.P.-i
RespondentBhooratnam and Co.
Excerpt:
- [ b.n. kirpal and; s. rajendra babu, jj.] - income-tax act - section 32a - after hearing counsel for the appellant, we direct the tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions of law to the high court. whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in allowing investment allowance under s. 32a of the it act, 1961, on the excavator, which was used for excavation of earth at site. no costs.b.n. kirpal, j.by the courtspecial leave grantedafter hearing counsel for the appellant, we direct the tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions of law to the high court"1. whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in law in allowing investment allowance under section. 32a of the it act, 1961, on the excavator, which was used for excavation of earth at site ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is correct in holding that the ao cannot verify which machinery was used for contract work in proceedings under s. 154 of the it act ?" *accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the high court is set aside and the application under s. 256(2) of the it act is allowedno costs.
Judgment:

B.N. KIRPAL, J.

BY THE COURT

Special leave granted

After hearing counsel for the appellant, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following two questions of law to the High Court

"1. Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing investment allowance under section. 32A of the IT Act, 1961, on the excavator, which was used for excavation of earth at site ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the AO cannot verify which machinery was used for contract work in proceedings under s. 154 of the IT Act ?" *

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order of the High Court is set aside and the application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act is allowed

No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //