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: RATNAM POULTRY (P.) LTD.
Court Name: Supreme Court of India Judge(s): S. P. Bharucha, Mrs. Ruma Pal, S. N. Variava Title: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs RATNAM POULTRY (P.) LTD. Case No.: C.A. No.4554 of 2000 Date of Judgment:2000-08-11 Reported As: 2001 PTD 2688 Result: Appeal allowed
Judgment ORDER Leave granted. Two questions were proposed by the Revenue for reference to the High Court for consideration. They read thus: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the sale of eggs and birds by the assessee constitutes income of an industrial undertaking for the purpose of allowing deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in treating the poultry sheds as 'plant' and allowing a higher rate of depreciation?" The High Court declined to order the reference and the Revenue is in appeal. The first question is now covered by the decision of this Court in CIT v. Venkateswara Hatcheries (Pvt.) Ltd. (1999) 237 ITR 174. The second question may not be so covered. It is, therefore, appropriate to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer both questions to the High Court. The High Court may answer the first in the manner stated above and consider the second question. Accordingly, the civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Tribunal shall now make a reference to the High Court of the two questions, set out above. No order as to costs. .