Supreme CourtFull Bench(2001) 02 SC CK 0127

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Roadmaster Industries of India P. Ltd.

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 27 February 2001 · Citation: AIR 2001 SC 3988 : (2001) AIRSCW 3967 : (2001) 91 FLR 754 : (2001) 8 JT 364 : (2001) 4 PLJR 100 : (2001) 6 SCALE 633 : (2001) 8 SCC 722 : (2001) 4 SCT 836 : (2002) 1 SLJ 316 : (2001) 7 Supreme 378 : (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2455

HON’BLE JUDGES
Y. K. Sabharwal, J · S. P. Bharucha, J · N. Santosh Hedge, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 7790 of 1997

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

5 paragraphs · 231 words
1.

The High Court declined to call for a reference at the instance of the Revenue of three questions. It did so in regard to the second question, with which alone we are now concerned, having regard to the statement on behalf of the Revenue made before us, on the ground that it was already covered by a judgment of that High Court in respect of the same assessee but for an earlier assessment year. The second question, with which we are concerned, reads thus :

"whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction u/S. 35-B on expenses on sea freight of ` 12,65,266/- and insurance charges of ` 1,46, 109/- incurred by the assessee whether in India or outside?"

2.

The question plainly relates to the correct interpretation to be placed upon the provisions of S. 35-B and, therefore, is a question of law, the reference of which ought to have been called for by the High Court.

3.

Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside insofar as it relates to the second question and the question, quoted above, shall be referred by the Tribunal to the High Court for its opinion, after drawing up a statement of case.

4.

No order as to costs.