High CourtsDivision Bench(1995) 03 MAD CK 0135

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Nagammal Mills Ltd.

Madras High Court · Decided on 22 March 1995 · Citation: (1996) 217 ITR 309

HON’BLE JUDGES
T. Jayarama Chouta, J · K.A. Thanikkachalam, J
CASE NUMBER
Tax Case Petition No. 71 of 1993

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 217 words

Thanikkachalam, J.—In this tax case petition, the Department requests this Court to direct the Tribunal to refer the following question of law said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 :

"Whether the Tribunal erred in not holding that the bank guarantee commission paid by the assessee in the instant case formed part of the cost of the relevant capital assets in view of the Supreme Court''s decision in Challapalli Sugar Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, A.P., Hyderabad, that all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and put them in working condition will form part of the cost of the asset and, therefore, the guarantee commission is a capital expenditure and not deductible ?"

2.

In view of the fact that as against the decision of this Court rendered in the Sivakami Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, , special leave has been granted by the Supreme Court, as can be seen from Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, , we direct the Tribunal to refer the abovesaid question of law, for the opinion of this Court, along with the statement of the facts of the case. Accordingly, the tax case petition is ordered.