Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Agra Beverages Corporation P. Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Subject

Direct Taxation

Court

Allahabad High Court

Decided On

Judge

Reported in

[2008]300ITR295(All)

Appellant

Commissioner of Income-tax

Respondent

Agra Beverages Corporation P. Ltd.

Excerpt:


.....penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammadajai kumar singh, j.1. the following solitary question has been referred in this case:whether the income-tax appellate tribunal was legally correct in holding that the bottles and crates in the assessee's case did not constitute its stock-in-trade and should be treated as plant 2. we have heard learned counsel for the assessee who has submitted that the following three decisions of three different high courts, which have all answered a similar question in favour of the assessee:(1) cit v. prern nath monga bottlers p. ltd. : [1997]226itr864(delhi) ;(2) cit v. margadarsi chit fund p. ltd. : [1997]227itr646(ap) ; and(3) cit v. saurashtra bottling p. ltd. : [1998]232itr270(guj) .3. we have not been shown any reason to take a different view. we, therefore, answer the question referred to against the department and in favour of the assessee.reference disposed of.

Judgment:


Ajai Kumar Singh, J.

1. The following solitary question has been referred in this case:

Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the bottles and crates in the assessee's case did not constitute its stock-in-trade and should be treated as plant

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the assessee who has submitted that the following three decisions of three different High Courts, which have all answered a similar question in favour of the assessee:

(1) CIT v. Prern Nath Monga Bottlers P. Ltd. : [1997]226ITR864(Delhi) ;

(2) CIT v. Margadarsi Chit Fund P. Ltd. : [1997]227ITR646(AP) ; and

(3) CIT v. Saurashtra Bottling P. Ltd. : [1998]232ITR270(Guj) .

3. We have not been shown any reason to take a different view. We, therefore, answer the question referred to against the Department and in favour of the assessee.

Reference disposed of.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //