Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Abressive India

Cit vs Abressive India

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 16, 2003
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/770511

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case Number
D.B. IT Reference No. 117 of 1998 16 January 2003
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: S. Bhandawat, for the Revenue Rajendra Mehta, for the Assessee In the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench N.N. Mathur & H.R. Panwar, JJ. - LABOUR & SERVICESAppointment: [Shiv Kumar Sharma, Ashok Parihar & K.S. Rathore, JJ] Merit list Rajasthan Secondary Education Act (42 of 1957), Section 28 & Rajast...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate S. Bhandawat, <i>for the Revenue </i>Rajendra Mehta, <i>for the Assessee</i>

Respondent

Abressive India

Legal References

Reported In
[2003]133TAXMAN389(Raj)

Excerpt

counsels: s. bhandawat, for the revenue rajendra mehta, for the assessee in the rajasthan high court, jodhpur bench n.n. mathur & h.r. panwar, jj. - labour & servicesappointment: [shiv kumar sharma, ashok parihar & k.s. rathore, jj] merit list rajasthan secondary education act (42 of 1957), section 28 & rajasthan board of secondary education rules, rule 20 - held, improved marks obtained by candidate after re-appearing in examination can be considered for drawing the merit list of candidate for appointment to post of teacher. circular issued by the director of primary & secondary education ousting such candidate from consideration in merit list is illegal and without jurisdiction.orderthe income tax appellate tribunal, jaipur by order dated 12-6-1998 has referred following question under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 for opinion of this court :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the income tax appellate tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the itat) was legally justified in holding that deductions under sections 80hh and 80i are admissible without deducting investment allowance2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the itat was justified in law in holding that depreciation on generator is admissible at the rate of 30% as against 15% claimed and allowed during the course of assessment proceedings?'2. it is not in dispute that first question has been answered by the decision of this court in cit v. surendra textiles . the second question has been answered by the decision of this court in cit v. agarwal transformers (p) ltd. .3. in view of this, the aforesaid first question stands answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and the second question stands answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Full Judgment

ORDER

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur by order dated 12-6-1998 has referred following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for opinion of this court :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ITAT) was legally justified in holding that deductions under sections 80HH and 80I are admissible without deducting investment allowance

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in holding that depreciation on generator is admissible at the rate of 30% as against 15% claimed and allowed during the course of assessment proceedings?'

2. It is not in dispute that first question has been answered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Surendra Textiles . The second question has been answered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Agarwal Transformers (P) Ltd. .

3. In view of this, the aforesaid first question stands answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and the second question stands answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial