COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HARSHA TRACTOR LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Revenue, the following question has been referred for the opinion of this Court under S. 256(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (for short the "Act"), by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "E", New Delhi (for short the "Tribunal") :

(2.) THE dispute relates to the asst. year 1975 -76 for which the previous year ended on 30th Sept., 1974. The assessee claimed depreciation on the value of the project report of Rs. 9,00,225. The ITO disallowed the claim on the ground that the project report was only a preliminary report which could not be said to form any drawing or specification of manufacturing technique. It was further observed that expenditure in question had been shown in lump without any details and since the details were not there is would not be possible to hold that any asset had come into existence. The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner of Income -tax (for short the "CIT(A)"). The said authority with reference to the agreement in question came to hold that the detailed project report was encompassed by the expression "plant" as defined in S. 43(3) of the Act. The matter was carried in further appeal before the Tribunal by the Revenue. The Tribunal upheld the views of the CIT(A). On being moved for a reference, the question as set out above has been referred for the opinion of this Court.