COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MANI M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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).

(2.) BY this application under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, the Revenue requires us to direct the 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 in the circumstances of the case, is the 'studio' a 'plant' for the purpose of depreciation under the IT Act, 1961 -

(3.) INASMUCH as the abovementioned question in our opinion is a question of law, we direct the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforementioned question for the opinion of this Court.