High CourtsDivision Bench(1983) 08 MAD CK 0027

Commissioner of Income Tax, Tamil Nadu-II vs Lucas-tvs Limited

Madras High Court · Decided on 1 August 1983 · Citation: (1984) 149 ITR 771

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Ratnam, J · G. Ramanujam, J
CASE NUMBER
Tax Case No. 1656 of 1977

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

18 paragraphs · 427 words

Ramanujam, J.—At the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion by the Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal :

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation

in respect of the assets for which deduction u/s 35(2) was allowed in the earlier assessment years ?

2.

In this case, the Tribunal has taken the view that the assessee is entitled to depreciation with reference to the assets for which relief had been

granted under s. 35(2) in the previous year on the ground that the statute prevents the assessee from claiming the benefit of depreciation in respect

of assets for which relief granted under s. 35(2) only for the same year had there is no prohibition from claiming the relief of depreciation in the

other years. Subsequent to the decision of the Tribunal, s. 35(2)(iv) had been enacted by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980 with retrospective

effect from April 1, 1962. Clause (iv) of sub-s. (2) of s. 35 which has been brought into force states that where a deduction is allowed for any

previous year under the said s. 35 in respect of expenditure represented wholly or partly by an the asset, no deduction shall be allowed under s. 32

for the same or other previous years in respect of the asset. In view of this amendment, the reasoning of the Tribunal that there is not bar on the

assessee claiming relief under s. 32 in respect of an asset for which deduction has been allowed in any previous year cannot hold good and since

the amendment has been brought into force from April 1, 1962, the same is applicable to the assessment year in this case. In view of the said

amendment, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.

3.

The learned counsel for the assessee, however, makes an order application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment just

now pronounced on the ground that the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1980, in so far as it amended s. 35 of the I.T. Act, 1961, has been challenged

before the Supreme Court and the matter is pending consideration. In view of the said circumstance, we are inclined to grant leave. The assessee

is, therefore, granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against our judgment in this case.