Commr. of I.T., A.P.-I, Hyderabad Vs. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 468 of 1997
Petitioner: Commr. of I.T., A.P.-I, Hyderabad
Respondent: Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 468 of 1997
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & N.SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 08, 2000
Head Note:
INCOME TAX
Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 256(1) – High Court declining to call for reference as no question of law arose – Question of entitlement of investment allowance under Section 32A and deduction under Section 80 – JJ. Held that questions of law arose and should be decided by High Court.
(Para 2)
Cases Reffered:
1. C.I.T. v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. (JT 1999 (2) SC 338)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. The High Court declined to call for a reference of the following questions.
“(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for the investment allowance under Section 32A in respect of additions to hatchery building treating it as ‘plant’ ?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-JJ of the I.T. Act, 1961?”
It did so because, according to it, no question of law arose, the same being covered by its judgments.
2. Learned Counsel for the Revenue
submits that both questions must
now be answered in favour of the Revenue by reason of the judgment of
this Court in C.I.T. v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. (JT 1999 (2) SC 338). Learned Counsel for the assessee does not accept this position. It is, therefore, necessary that these two questions, which undoubtedly raise questions of law, must be decided by the High Court.
3. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Tribunal shall now refer the two questions to the High Court for decision, having drawn up the Statement of Case.
4. No order as to costs.
1. The High Court declined to call for a reference of the following questions.
“(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for the investment allowance under Section 32A in respect of additions to hatchery building treating it as ‘plant’ ?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-JJ of the I.T. Act, 1961?”
It did so because, according to it, no question of law arose, the same being covered by its judgments.
2. Learned Counsel for the Revenue
submits that both questions must
now be answered in favour of the Revenue by reason of the judgment of
this Court in C.I.T. v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (P) Ltd. (JT 1999 (2) SC 338). Learned Counsel for the assessee does not accept this position. It is, therefore, necessary that these two questions, which undoubtedly raise questions of law, must be decided by the High Court.
3. The appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Tribunal shall now refer the two questions to the High Court for decision, having drawn up the Statement of Case.
4. No order as to costs.
