1999 (2) TMI 40

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1961 ("the Act"), filed by the Revenue out of the assessment year 1987-88 seeking a mandamus to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for drawing up a statement of case and referring the following questions to this court for opinion : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that fork-lift trucks are not covered by entry 9A of the o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ommissioner of Income-tax. By his order, dated July 19, 1990, the appeal came to be dismissed. By the said order the disallowance of Rs. 63,600 being extra shift allowance of depreciation on fork-lift truck came to be upheld. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated September 21, 1996, allowed the appeal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-lift truck fell in the category of general plant and machinery and that the fork-lift truck was not covered by entry (9A) of para. IIID of old Appendix I related to motor tractors and harvesting combines. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that this was a pure finding of fact and, therefore, no referable question of law arises on the order of the Tribunal. On the other hand, it was urged ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioned against entry (9A) of para. IIID of old Appendix I. On the other hand, depreciation was allowed only at the rate of 10 per cent. Under the above circumstances, in any view of the matter, question No. I has become academic. Hence, question No. 1 cannot be said to be a referable question of law. However, as regards question No. 2 reproduced hereinabove, the controversy involved is, whether ....