Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. M/s Mysore Minerals Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5656 of 1998
Petitioner: Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka
Respondent: M/s Mysore Minerals Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5656 of 1998
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 17, 2000
Head Note:
INCOME TAX
Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 256(2) – Reference under – Refusal by High Court to call reference – Question of allowability of investment allowance on machinery employed in extracting granite from quarry, cutting in various sizes and polishing. Held that question of law arises. Tribunal directed to make reference.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the refusal by the High Court to call for a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act of the following question proposed by it:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that investment allowance is allowable on the machinery employed in the process of extraction of granite from quarry, cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them?”
2. The High Court declined to call for a reference because the answer to it was covered by its decision in the case of the assessee itself (205 I.T.R. 461). The judgment of the High Court in the earlier case, in turn, was based on its earlier decision in Shankar Construction Company v. C.I.T. (189 I.T.R. 463). That, as the name indicates, was a company engaged in the business of construction and it was the principle of that judgment which the High Court applied.
3. We think, in the circumstances,
that a question of law arises that
requires the consideration of the High Court.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to refer to the High Court for its consideration the question set out above, having drawn up a statement of case.
5. No order as to costs.
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the refusal by the High Court to call for a reference under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act of the following question proposed by it:
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that investment allowance is allowable on the machinery employed in the process of extraction of granite from quarry, cutting the same into various sizes and polishing them?”
2. The High Court declined to call for a reference because the answer to it was covered by its decision in the case of the assessee itself (205 I.T.R. 461). The judgment of the High Court in the earlier case, in turn, was based on its earlier decision in Shankar Construction Company v. C.I.T. (189 I.T.R. 463). That, as the name indicates, was a company engaged in the business of construction and it was the principle of that judgment which the High Court applied.
3. We think, in the circumstances,
that a question of law arises that
requires the consideration of the High Court.
4. Accordingly, the Civil Appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Tribunal is directed to refer to the High Court for its consideration the question set out above, having drawn up a statement of case.
5. No order as to costs.
