TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Income-tax Officer deducted the investment subsidy received by the assessee from the cost of assets for the purpose of computing depreciation, investment allowance, and the claim under section 801 of the Income-tax Act. In the appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the above subsidy received should not be reckoned or taken into account for determining the actual cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, for the purpose of depreciation, investment allowance, etc. The Revenue filed appeals before the Incometax Appellate Tribunal (in short, " the Tribunal " ). The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in Western India Plywood Ltd.'s case (I.T.A. No. 148 (Coch) of 1980, order dated September 23, 1981), as also a ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be deducted for the purpose of depreciation, investment allowance and section 80J, etc. ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, (i) the circular has any relevance to the issue except for the limited purpose of not treating the receipt as income ; (ii) the Tribunal is justified in relying on the circular which is extraneous to the issue?" Counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary objection and contended that no referable question of law arises in this batch of original petitions. It is true that, at this stage, in considering an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, this court is concerned with the only aspect as to whether there is a referable question of law in the common order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5, and reported in K.S.R.T.C. Pension and Gratuity Fund Trusts case [1987] 167 ITR 383, following the decision of the Madras High Court in Carborandum Universal Ltd.'s case [1985] 156 ITR 1, was taken up in special leave petition before the Supreme Court SLP No. 44 10 of 1988 (see [1989] 179 ITR (St) 60). A three-member Bench of the Supreme Court granted special leave and set aside the order of this court and directed the question of law to be referred for the decision of this court. So, it cannot be said that the decision of this court reported in K.S.R.P.C. Pension and Gratuity Fund Trust's case [1987] 167 ITR 383 represents the correct position in law. There was an earlier decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Telu Ram Raunqi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
