9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (12) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing extra-shift allowance on transformers, electric substation and electric motors which are stationary installations ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing guest house expenses when they are not allowable as per section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? According to the Revenue these questions do arise from the order of the Tribunal dated March 31, 1997 in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 1985-86. In response to the notice of motion Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Advocate, appearing with Mr. B. S. Gupta, Senior Advocate, has put in appearance for the assessee. According to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rves to be dismissed. Mr. Bansal, placing strong reliance on Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 321 (SC) ; CIT v. Murugappa Chettiar (S.) [1992] 197 ITR 575 (Ker); CIT v. Kshma Tandon (Smt.) [1992] 194 ITR 751 (All) and CIT v. Modipon Ltd. (No. 2) [1995] 212 ITR 656 (Delhi), submitted that even on the principle of constructive res judicata this petition deserves to be dismissed as the Revenue did not either seek a reference under section 256 or it was declined. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. As regards question No. 2 relating to guest house expenses, we are of the opinion that this question is not a referable question of law. The Revenue has either accepted the view of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les, but was general machinery entitled to ten per cent. ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in sustaining the view that extra-shift allowance on transformer, electric switchgear and air circuit breaker valuing Rs. 1,87,374 was not allowable in view of sub-part 3 (special rates) of Annexure-I to rule 5 as electric machinery as mentioned in serial No. 1 and not special machinery as Part III(B)(8) and C(4) of Appendix I to rule 5 of the Income-tax Rules ? More or less same was the view taken in ITC No. 23 of 1990 decided on February 25, 1997. In view of the above we are of the opinion that question No. I is a question of law which arises from the order of the Tribunal. We thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
