Himachal Pradesh Court May 1995 Judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Hotel Mayur,

Court: Himachal Pradesh

S.N. Phukan, C.J.1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the abovesaid income-tax references.2. All the references are under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', in short), from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, on the prayer of the Revenue. The common question has been referred to this court for opinion. We may refer to only one question in Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1991. The said question is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that cash subsidies received by the assessee are not to be deducted from the cost of machinery and plant and building under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for determining their actual cost for the purposes of depreciation under Section 32 of the Act ?'3. We may also refer to the facts of the case in the above reference (1 of 1991). The Assessing Officer in this case found that subsidy was r...

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. (1) Hotel Mayur (i.T.R. No. 1 of 1995). ...

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: [1995]215ITR788(HP),[1995]85TAXMAN49(NULL)

S. N. PHUKAN C.J. - By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of the abovesaid income-tax references.All the references are under sub-section (1) of section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act', in short), from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, on the prayer of the Revenue. The common question has been referred to this court for opinion. We may refer to only one question in Income-tax Reference No. 1 of 1991. The said question is :'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that cash subsidies received by the assessee are not to be deducted from the cost of machinery and plant and building under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for determining their actual cost for the purposes of depreciation under section 32 of the Act ?'We may also refer to the facts of the case in the above reference (1 of 1991). The Assessing Officer in this case found that subsidy was receive...

Aggarwal B.L. Vs. Himachal Consultancy Organisation and anr.

Court: Himachal Pradesh

Reported in: (1999)IIILLJ296HP

S.N. Phukan, CJ.1. The petitioner herein Mr. B.L. Aggarwal joined the services of respondent No. 1 namely, Himachal Consultancy Organisation Ltd., (in short HIMCON) on March 15, 1982 as an Administrative Officer and after putting in more than ten years of service he retired on June 30, 1992. The petitioner has two grievances i.e. non-payment of gratuity for the entire service period of ten years and non-granting of increments due on March 1, 1989 and March 1, 1992 of Rs. 30/- and 65/- respectively. According to the petitioner, had these two increments been granted to him, his last pay drawn would have been Rs. 4053/- per month. There is no dispute that the post of the petitioner was redesignated as Statistical Officer w.e.f. December 18, 1989 but he was given the lowest pay scale of the post although, according to the petitioner, he was entitled to get a higher pay scale of Rs. 1400-2500 and thus on his retirement his monthly pay would have been Rs. 4053/-. The petitioner prays for an ...