Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bharat Commerce And Industry Ltd.
1990 Latest Caselaw 347 Del

JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner is seeking reference of the following four questions :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that contribution of Rs. 1,16,950 to Bharat Commerce Vidyalaya was expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the assessed's business ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 1,72,216 on gifts and presents ?

(3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in directing that depreciation be allowed at 15% because the manufacturing of synthetic yarn involves machinery coming into contact with corrosive material when this point did not arise out of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and was not even the subject of consideration before the Income-tax Officer ?

(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the expenditure on the repairs of Bharat Commerce Vidyalaya and Shiva Temple is am admissible expenditure under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?"

2. As far as the first two question are concerned, vide our order reported as CIT v. Bharat Commerce and Industry Ltd. (No. 1) [1990] 184 ITR 90 (Delhi), we have declined to call for a reference of similar question.

3. As regards question No. 3, it is a question of fact as to whether the machinery comes into contact with corrosive material or not. The question of fact determined is that the machinery is question does come into contact with corrosive material and there is no dispute that once in comes into contact with corrosive material, the rate of depreciation allowable is 15% Therefore, no question of law arises.

4. As far as question No. 4 is concerned, a similar question was raised in CIT v. Bharat Commerce and Industries Ltd. (No. 1) [1990] 184 ITR 90 (Delhi) and reference of the same was called for.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, we decline to call for a reference with regard to first three questions but we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid question No. 4 only to this court.

6. No order as to costs.