M/s. Sundaram Spinning Mills, Komarapalayam Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1985.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.1984 of the Madras High Court in T.C. No. 68 of 1980)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.1984 of the Madras High Court in T.C. No. 68 of 1980)
Petitioner: M/s. Sundaram Spinning Mills, Komarapalayam
Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 376 of 1985.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.1984 of the Madras High Court in T.C. No. 68 of 1980)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.1984 of the Madras High Court in T.C. No. 68 of 1980)
Judges: S.C. AGRAWAL & D.P. WADHWA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 09, 1997
Appearances:
Ms. Janki Ramachandran, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate and Mr. B. Krishna Prasad and Mr. S. Rajappa, Advocates with him for the Respondent.
Head Note:
INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 32, Income Tax Rules 1962 – Rule 5- Appendix 1- Depreciation- Extra shift allowances – Held following Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s South India Viscose Ltd., case decided on same day, extra shift allowance to be allowed on the basis of entire number of days worked by the concern and not in case of each item – Appeal allowed.
Cases Reffered:
1. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s South India Viscose Ltd., (Para 2)
2. M/s South India Viscose Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 135 ITR 206 (Para 2)
2. M/s South India Viscose Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 135 ITR 206 (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
S.C. AGRAWAL, J.:
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated April 25, 1984 whereby the following question was answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of the machineries added during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 on the basis of double and triple shifts worked by the entire concern ?”
2. The High Court has placed reliance on its earlier judgment dated April 24, 1984 in T.C. No. 1053-54 of 1979, Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s South India Viscose Ltd., which was based on the judgment in M/s South India Viscose Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 135 ITR 206, Civil Appeal Nos. 3179-81/82 filed against the said judgment of the High Court reported in 135 ITR 206 have been allowed by our judgment pronounced today and a similar question has been answered in the affirmative. For the reasons given in the said judgment of this Court the question referred must be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside and the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated April 25, 1984 whereby the following question was answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of the machineries added during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 on the basis of double and triple shifts worked by the entire concern ?”
2. The High Court has placed reliance on its earlier judgment dated April 24, 1984 in T.C. No. 1053-54 of 1979, Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s South India Viscose Ltd., which was based on the judgment in M/s South India Viscose Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 135 ITR 206, Civil Appeal Nos. 3179-81/82 filed against the said judgment of the High Court reported in 135 ITR 206 have been allowed by our judgment pronounced today and a similar question has been answered in the affirmative. For the reasons given in the said judgment of this Court the question referred must be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside and the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
