TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"), on earth moving equipment, crane, oil engine, pumps and machinery for a sum of Rs. 39,03,596. According to the Revenue, the following two substantial questions of law arise from the order of the Tribunal : "1. Whether, the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on earth moving equipment, crane, oil engine and machinery foundations for gang saws under section 32A of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in granting investment allowance by following the judgment of this court reported in CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 461, which had been impliedly overruled by the Supreme Court in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co, [199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court on the two questions of law set forth in para. 2 of this order. As the two questions raised are interlinked and intertwined with each other, we propose to deal with them together. Counsel appearing for the Revenue has argued that this court in CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 461 had answered the questions referred to it in favour of the assessee relying upon a judgment of this court in Shankar Construction Co. v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 463 which has been overruled by the Supreme Court in CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412. As the judgment of this court in Shankar Construction Co. [1991] 189 ITR 463 has been overruled by the Supreme Court, the decision in CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. [1994] 205 ITR 461 (Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons given hereinabove, leave is granted and the appeal is allowed." Though no specific reasons are given for allowing the appeal, we would take it that the reasons given were similar to the one given with regard to the construction of a dam which was held to be not a process of manufacture or production of an article or a thing. This court in two other cases of the assessee itself relating to earlier assessment years has taken the same view. The same are I. T. R. C. No. 22 of 1995, dated September 9, 1999 (CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (No. 1) [2001] 250 ITR 725 (Kar)) and I. T, A. No. 91 of 1999, dated November 15, 2000 (CIT v. Mysore Minerals Ltd. (No. 2) [2001] 250 ITR 728 (Kar)). In those two cases, the effect of the judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee, instals new machinery for the purpose of manufacture or production of an article or a thing, then he would be entitled to the investment allowance. In the present case, the assessee is manufacturing or producing an article or thing, and, therefore the assessee would be entitled to the investment allowance on the new machinery employed in the manufacture or production of an article or thing; such as earth moving equipment, crane, oil engines, pumps and machinery foundations for gang saws under section 32A of the Act. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in N. C. Budharaja and Co.'s case [1993] 204 ITR 412 would not be applicable to the facts of the present appeal. For the reasons stated above, we answer question No. I in the affir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
