https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5811 The Supreme Court held that the existence of an earlier High Court decision did not remove the legal issue whether poultry sheds could be treated as "plant" for depreciation at the higher rate applicable to plant. Because the matter turned on a question of law, the High Court ought to have required the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the question for decision on merits, including the effect of the prior ruling. The refusal to direct a reference was therefore incorrect, and the impugned order was set aside with a direction that the question be referred to the High Court. en-us Fri, 04 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Aug 2018 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5811 The Supreme Court held that the existence of an earlier High Court decision did not remove the legal issue whether poultry sheds could be treated as "plant" for depreciation at the higher rate applicable to plant. Because the matter turned on a question of law, the High Court ought to have required the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the question for decision on merits, including the effect of the prior ruling. The refusal to direct a reference was therefore incorrect, and the impugned order was set aside with a direction that the question be referred to the High Court. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5811