Commissioner of Income Tax vs Electronics Consortium (P) Ltd.

Today there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee although on an earlier date of hearing that is 4-5-2007 Mr. Manu Monga, learned Counsel had appeared for the assessee.

In this reference, the following question of law has been referred for our opinion u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance and additional depreciation on photostat machine, which was an office appliance?

Learned Counsel for the revenue has drawn our attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. B.N.B. Enterprises, , wherein it has been held that the process of duplication by using a photostat machine does not result in the manufacture of any goods, articles or things.

We see no reason to disagree with the view taken by the Madras High Court. Under the circumstances, the question is answered in the negative in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

This reference is disposed of accordingly.