Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Roadmaster Industries of India P. Ltd. - Court Judgment |
| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/666343 |
| Subject | Direct Taxation |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Decided On | Feb-27-2001 |
| Case Number | Civil Appeal No. 7790 of 1997 |
| Judge | S.P. Bharucha,; N. Santosh Hegde and; Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ. |
| Reported in | (2001)166CTR(SC)567; [2001]248ITR451(SC) |
| Appellant | Commissioner of Income-tax |
| Respondent | Roadmaster Industries of India P. Ltd. |
| Appellant Advocate | M.L. Verma, Senior Adv.,; Rajiv Tyagi,; B.V. Balaram Das |
| Respondent Advocate | H.K. Puri, Adv. |
Excerpt:
-
[ s.p. bharucha,; n. santosh hegde and; y.k. sabharwal, jj.] - the high court (see 1996 pnh 180), declined to call for a reference at the instance of the revenue of three questions. the second question, with which we are concerned, reads thus (page 69). the question plainly relates to the correct interpretation to be placed upon the provisions of section 35b and, therefore, is a question of law, the reference of which ought to have been called for by the high court......which we are concerned, reads thus (page 69)"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35b on expenses on sea freight of rs. 12, 65, 266 and insurance charges of rs. 1, 46, 109 incurred by the assessee whether in india or outside ?" *the question plainly relates to the correct interpretation to be placed upon the provisions of section 35b and, therefore, is a question of law, the reference of which ought to have been called for by the high courtaccordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. the order under appeal is set aside in so far as it relates to the second question and the question, quoted above, shall be referred by the tribunal to the.....
Judgment:S.P. Bharucha,; N. Santosh Hegde and; Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.
The High Court (see 1996 PNH 180), declined to call for a reference at the instance of the Revenue of three questions. It did so in regard to the second question, with which alone we are now concerned, having regard to the statement on behalf of the Revenue made before us, on the ground that it was already covered by a judgment of that High Court in respect of the same assessee (CIT v. Roadmaster Industries of India P. Ltd. 1993 PNH 82), but for an earlier assessment year. The second question, with which we are concerned, reads thus (page 69)
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B on expenses on sea freight of Rs. 12, 65, 266 and insurance charges of Rs. 1, 46, 109 incurred by the assessee whether in India or outside ?" *
The question plainly relates to the correct interpretation to be placed upon the provisions of section 35B and, therefore, is a question of law, the reference of which ought to have been called for by the High Court
Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside in so far as it relates to the second question and the question, quoted above, shall be referred by the Tribunal to the High Court for its opinion, after drawing up a statement of case.