High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench
CIT vs. Premier Industries
Deepak Verma & A.K. Gohil, JJ.
IT Appeal No. 1 of 2002
14th March, 2002
R.L. Jain, for the Appellant
BY THE COURT :
Heard Shri R.L. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant on the question of admission. This is an appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, against the order dt. 24th Aug., 2001, passed by Tribunal, Indore. Learned counsel contended that two questions would be involved in this appeal, namely : whether investment allowance of Rs. 64,087 was properly allowed by the AO towards machinery, which was installed during the period 1st April, 1987, to 31st March, 1988, and whether deletion of amount by CIT(A) made by AO on account of notional interest amounting to Rs. 16,87,500 was properly allowed ?
2. After having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and after perusal of the record we find no merit and substance in this appeal. The Tribunal had taken into consideration that it cannot be disputed that installation of plant and machinery was completed by assessee on 31st March, 1988. It has also been found that main machinery of the unit was imported from M/s Mitsu Bishi, Japan, vide agreement entered into between the assessee and this company in December, 1986. He, therefore, did not allow the investment allowance, as claimed by the assessee, but investment allowance was allowed on the purchases made from 21st May, 1988, to 11th Feb., 1989. For the reasonings recorded by the Tribunal, we find that this ground, with regard to investment allowance, has been rendered a question of fact, which is not required to be answered by this Court.
3. As regards interest was concerned, the assessee has explained that interest-free advance was given to Premier Proteins, a subsidiary of the assessee-company as per stipulation of bank and the same was in the nature of quasi- equity.
4. Both the questions have been dealt with elaborately by the Tribunal and findings have been recorded thereon. Against such findings, which have been recorded by the Tribunal on the aforesaid questions, we find, no case for interference is made out. Thus, this appeal is hereby dismissed.
[Citation : 257 ITR 762]