9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - - - - - Dated:- 19-2-2003 - Judge(s) : K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN., J. M. JAMES. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN J. -The following questions of law stand referred to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for our opinion: "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in denying the investment allowance on E. C. G. machine, x-ray unit and other laboratory equipments ? (2) Whether, the Tribunal was justified in holding that since the above referred equipments are not independent industrial undertaking but only part of the composite undertaking and therefore the benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is not entitled to get investment allowance on the plant and machinery installed in the hospital. The Tribunal did not agree that at least on the E.C.G. machine and the equipment in the x-ray unit and the laboratories investment allowance should be allowed. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was therefore upheld. Counsel appearing for the applicant placed strong reliance on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Prasad Film Laboratories P. Ltd. [1997] 225 ITR 348. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Dr. M. L. Agarwalla [2002] 258 ITR 102. Counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee had installed all the equipment in the hospital for its own use a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee is entitled to investment allowance in respect of ultrasound medical diagnostic electrical equipment, air-conditioner and voltage stabilizer on the ground that the assessee did not manufacture or produce any article or thing as envisaged in section 32A(2)(b)(ii) of the Act (sic). The Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Air Survey Co. of India P. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 707 in the case of the assessee, an air survey company, engaged in the business of survey, mapping, aerial photography and aero-magnetic photography claimed investment allowance under section 32A of the Act in respect of aircraft radio purchased, after relying upon the decisions in CIT v. Trinity Hospital [1997] 225 ITR 178 (Raj) and CIT v. Upasana Hospital [1997] 225 ITR 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
