1995 (6) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... undertaking, investment allowance under s. 32A of the Act was rightly allowed by the learned CIT(A). 2. The contention of the learned Departmental Representative for the applicant is that since in the case of CIT vs. N.C. Budhraja & Co. decided on 7th Sept., 1993, the Supreme Court has held that contractors engaged in construction business, were not manufacturers or producers of any articles or thing and since the order of the Supreme Court has retrospective operation, the order of the Tribunal is required to be brought in conformity with that of the Supreme Court. It is in that sense of the matter a mistake apparent from record is alleged to be existing in the order of the Tribunal. This argument is supported with the decision of Bomba....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... When a Court decides a matter, it does not make the law in any sense but all it does is that it interprets the law and states what the law has always been and must be understood to have been. Where an order is made by an authority on the basis of a particular decision, the reversal of such decision in further proceedings will justify a rectification of the order based on that decision. It has further been held that a binding decision rendered by a Court is always retrospective and the decision which is overruled was never the law. The overruling decision should be deemed to have been in force even on the day when the order sought to be rectified was passed. A subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or of the High Court has retrospective ....