TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following questions of law for the opinion of this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation and investment allowance on the technical know-how holding it to be in the nature of plant? 2. Whether, on the facts and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel are further agreed that question No. 3 is also covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Indokem Pvt. Ltd. [1981] 132 ITR 125 and decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P.) Ltd. [1996] 219 ITR 644. In view of the above, question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The only dispute that requires our consideration is the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or thing specified in the list in the Eleventh Schedule. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that there is no material on record in this case to show that the weighing scale and the mobile crane meet the description of the machinery or plant specified in sub-section (2) of section 32A of the Act. In other words, according to him, there is nothing on record to show whether the said weighing ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the business of the assessee in this case was manufacture of special alloys. There is also no dispute about the fact that the machineries in question, viz., weighing scale and mobile crane, were used by the assessee for its business which, admittedly, was manufacture of special alloys. That being so, it is obvious that the weighi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
