Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Maharashtra Apex Corpn. Ltd. .

Order

1. The questions that were referred to the High Court by the Tribunal under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were these:

“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of CIT (A) directing the Income Tax Officer to allow investment allowance on the ground that the mere fact that the machinery has not been used by the assessee for undertaking any manufacturing of its own could not be any ground for denying investment allowance to the assessee?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of CIT (A) directing the ITO to allow extra shift allowance on the ground that it did not matter whether the assessee had used the machinery in double shift in one of its own concerns or whether it was the lessee who had used the machinery in double shift in his own concern?”

The questions have been answered by the High Court in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Revenue is in appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly states that the answers to the questions are covered against the Revenue by the judgment of this Court in CIT v. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. (1998) 3 SCC 605, (1998) 231 ITR 308

3. In this view, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.