Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS Respondent: M. MANI
Court Name: Kerala High Court Judge(s): J. B. Koshy, Om Prakash Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs M. MANI Case No.: 0. P. No,14702 of 1996 Date of Judgment:1998-01-14 Reported As: 1999 PTD 3719 Result: Application allowed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' OM PRAKASH, C. J.----Despite the name of counsel for the opposite party (the assessee) having been printed in the cause list, no one has put in appearance and, therefore, we have heard standing counsel for the Revenue (applicant). ' By this application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Revenue requires us to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following question for the opinion of this Court: "Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, is the 'studio' a 'plant' for the purpose of depreciation under the Income Tax Act, 1961?" ' Inasmuch as the abovementioned question in our opinion is a question of law, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforementioned question for the opinion of this Court. ' The application is, accordingly, allowed.