COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HARISONS MALAYALAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the instance of the Revenue, following question has been referred by the Tribunal, Cochin Bench for opinion in terms of S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short the 'Act').

(2.) THE factual position as set out in the statement of case is as follows. Assessee is a public limited company mainly engaged in the business of growing tea, rubber, cardamom, etc. and also executing engineering contract works. If claimed investment allowance on computers installed in the estate offices. The AO disallowed the claim for investment allowance on the ground that those machines are office equipments. On appeal, the CIT(A) allowed the claim by referring to a decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT vs. I.B.M. World Trade Corpn. (1981) 130 ITR 739 (Bom) : TC 28R.211. Revenue contested the correctness of such decision before the Tribunal. It was observed by the Tribunal that the assessee is entitled to get investment allowance on computers in the light of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (1993) 112 CTR (Cal) 335 : (1993) 201 ITR 17 (Cal) : TC 28R.210. At the instance of the Revenue as stated above, the question has been referred to.

(3.) WHETHER a particular machine is liable for deduction or not would depend upon the prescriptions in the relevant provision and the factual position of the case. Sec. 32A(2)(b)(iii) is relevant to the purpose of the case. Sec. 32A(1) and (2) reads as follows: