CIT Vs. DHALL ENTERPRISES & ENGINEERS (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the time of admission on 16 -4 -2003, the following question had been formulated by this Court :

(2.) IN a similar matter involving identical issue being Tax Appeal No. 166 of 2005, on 3/4 -10 -2005 this Court passed the following order :

(3.) AS against that, Mr. R.K. Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent -assessee, submitted that the asset in question did not have any written down value, and therefore, there was no question of considering the assets to be forming part of block of assets. That only in such circumstances, the third proviso would get invoked and hence, there was no error committed by the Tribunal. He also invited attention to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 1995, whereby the first proviso came to be omitted with effect from 1 -4 -1996 i.e., assessment year 199697 and subsequent years. According to him, this goes to indicate that the benefit under the first proviso had to be granted up to and for assessment year 1995 -96.