COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. HINDUSTAN POLYMERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two questions referred to us by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner are as follows :

(2.) AS far as question No. (2) is concerned, counsel for the Department has very fairly stated that the answer to be given to the said question is concluded, as far as this court is concerned, by its previous decision in CIT v. Alcock Ashdown and Co. Ltd. : [1979]119ITR164(Bom) . This is a decision to which I was a party. We have been invited to answer the said question, that is, question No. (2), in accordance with the aforesaid decision in Alcock Ashdown's case without further statement facts or law. Accordingly, question No. (2) is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal has not erred at all.

(3.) THE first question relates to an inclusion of amount of Rs. 36,669 as part of the cost of the plant and machinery on which the assessee claims that depreciation and development rebate should be allowed. The assessee is a limited company. The previous year was the financial year ending March 31, 1968. The company was established for the manufacturing polystyrene products at Vizagapatnam.