Commissioner of Income Tax vs Krishan Mohan (P.) Ltd.

By this petition u/s 256(2) of the income tax Act, 1961 (�the Act�), the petitioner has prayed that the Tribunal be asked to frame the statement of the case and refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court :

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in treating cinema building as part of plant and machinery and in holding that a higher rate of depreciation was allowable on the same ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in applying the decision in the case of Patel Enterprises v. ITO [1986] 15 ITD 114 (Ahd.) (TM) ?

Whether, the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the fact that in the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88 depreciation was allowed at the rate applicable to building orders for which assessment year have been upheld in appeal ?"

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/revenue. The counsel points out that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the points involved in this case so far. He points out that other High Courts have taken divergent views on the issue. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on Santosh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, and submits that it was held that the cinema building cannot be treated similar to plant in a cinema house. On the other hand, in CIT v. Anand Theatres [IT Reference No. 234 of 1998], the Kerala High Court has taken a different view. We are informed that an SLP has been granted against this judgment. In this view, we direct the Tribunal to frame a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid questions to this Court for its opinion.

The petition stands disposed of.