Supreme Court of India
M/S SUNDARAM SPINNING MILLS versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADRAS
- Decided
- 9 July 1997
- Judges listed
- S.C. AGRAWAL
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 87 · 1997 INSC 562
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal by the assesscc is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras dated April 25, 1984 whereby the following question was answered in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue :
p. 88, margin A
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of the machineries added during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 on the basis of double and triple shifts worked
p. 88, margin B
by the entire concern?"
p. 88, margin C
The High Court has placed reliance on its earlier judgment dated April 24, 1984 in T.C. No. 1053-54 of 1979, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mis South India Viscose Ltd., which was based on the judgment in Mis South India Viscose Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 135 ITR 206. Civil Appeal Nos. 3179-81/82 filed against the said judgment of the High Court reported in 135 ITR 206 have been allowed by our judgment pronounced , today and a similar question has been answered in the affirmative. For the reasons given in the said judgment of this Court the question referred must be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the ass~ssee and against the Revenue. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs. R.K.S. Appeal allowed.
p. 88, margin C