Madhya Pradesh High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Premier Industries (I.) Ltd. on 14 March, 2002
Equivalent citations: [2002]257ITR762(MP)
Author: Deepak Verma
Bench: Deepak Verma
JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission.
2. This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated August 24, 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore.
2. Learned counsel contended that two questions would be involved in this appeal, namely : whether investment allowance of Rs. 64,087 was properly allowed by the Assessing Officer towards machinery, which was installed during the period April 1, 1987 to March 31, 1988, and whether deletion of amount by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) made by the Assessing Officer on account of notional interest amounting to Rs. 16,87,500 was properly allowed ?
3. After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record we find no merit and substance in this appeal.
4. The Tribunal had taken into consideration that it cannot be disputed that installation of plant and machinery was completed by the assessee on March 31, 1988. It has also been found that the main machinery of the unit was imported from Mitsubishi, Japan, vide agreement entered into between the assessee and this company in December, 1986. He, therefore, did not allow the investment allowance, as claimed by the assessee, but investment was allowed on the purchases made from May 21, 1988 to February 11, 1989. For the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal, we find that this ground, with regard to investment allowance, has been rendered a question of fact, which is not required to be answered by this court.
5. As regards interest was concerned, the assessee has explained that interest-free advance was given to Premier Proteins, a subsidiary of the assessee-company as per stipulation of bank and the same was in the nature of quasi-equity.
6. Both the questions have been dealt with elaborately by the Tribunal and findings have been recorded thereon. Against such findings, which have been recorded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid questions, we find, no case for interference is made out. Thus, this appeal is hereby dismissed.