COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. J. K. INDUSTRIES LTD.
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. D. Haldar with Md. Nizamuddin, for the Petitioner : Dr. Debi Prosad Pal with R. K.
Biswas, Ms. Sudipta Roy, for the Respondent
JUDGMENT
Y. R. MEENA, J. :
By this reference application, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our
opinion :
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
justified in upholding the direction of the learned CIT(A) to withdraw the depreciation of
assets allowed by the AO though not claimed by the assessee ?
|
||||||||||
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
was justified in upholding the direction of the learned CIT(A) to compute
the deduction under section
80J on the basis of actual cost of the fixed assets, in spite
of the fact that the depreciation was allowed to those fixed assets, even
not being claimed by the assessee ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified
in upholding the direction of the learned CIT(A) to compute the capital gain/loss on the
basis of the actual cost of the fixed assets sold in spite of the fact that the
depreciation was allowed on those assets by the AO even not being claimed by the assessee
?"
2. The learned counsel for both the parties submit that the relevant facts of this case
are similar to the facts referred to in IT Ref. No. 108 of 1993 in the case of this very
assessee [reported as CIT vs. J.K. Industries Ltd. (2000) 158 CTR (Cal) 17] and the
question No. 1 is also common. Therefore, this question can be answered in the same way,
as has been answered in IT Ref. No. 108 of 1993.
Considering the submissions, we answer the question No. 1 in the affirmative, that is, in
favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
3. The learned counsel for both the parties further submit that question Nos. 2 and 3 are
consequential in answer to question No. 1.
Accordingly, we answer question Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the
assessee and against the Revenue.
The reference application is, accordingly, disposed of.
RANJAN KUMAR MAZUMDAR, J. :
I agree.
