Karnataka High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Kareem Cascami Ltd. on 4 June, 1992
Equivalent citations: [1993]202ITR184(KAR), [1993]202ITR184(KARN)
JUDGMENT K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.
1. The following three questions are referred under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for our consideration. The questions pertain to the assessment year 1982-83.
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in passing an order under section 263 ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on roads, drains and culverts ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amount of subsidy should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for the purpose of determining depreciation and investment allowance ?"
2. The second question is covered by the decision of this court reported in CIT v. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. [1984] 150 ITR 23. Following the said decision, the second question in answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
3. The third question is also covered by the decision of this court reported in CIT v. Diamond Dies Manufacturing Corporation Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 655. Consequently, the third question is also answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
4. In view of the above answers, the first question has to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
5. Reference answered accordingly.