9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Extra-shift allowance on stationary electric installations 2. Allowance of guest house expenses under section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Extra-shift allowance on stationary electric installations: The Commissioner of Income-tax sought a reference to the High Court regarding the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to allow extra-shift allowance on transformers, electric substation, and electric motors, despite them being stationary installations. The Revenue contended that this allowance was not permissible under the law. The Tribunal had previously allowed similar allowances in the case of the assessee for other assessment years. The Revenue's request for reference on similar issues for the assessment year 1986-87 had been declined by the court. However, citing previous judgments and the principle of constructive res judicata, the court found that the question of law regarding extra-shift allowance on stationary electric installations was valid. Referring to previous cases, the court directed the Tribunal to refer the question to the High Court for its opinion. Allowance of guest house expenses under section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The second issue revolved around the allowance of guest house expenses by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue argued that these expenses were not allowable under section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the Revenue had either accepted the Tribunal's view on this matter for other assessment years or the question had been previously declined as not referable. Considering these factors, the court found that the question of guest house expenses was not a referable question of law. Therefore, the court declined to grant a reference on this issue. In conclusion, the High Court directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the question of law regarding the allowance of extra-shift allowance on stationary electric installations for the High Court's opinion. However, the court found that the issue of guest house expenses was not a referable question of law. The judgment provided detailed analysis and cited relevant precedents to support its decisions on both issues.
|
