- (1.) The High Court at Bombay rejected the revenues application u/s. 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. That questions to which the application pertained read thus : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee had claimed extra shift allowance on computer only and not on data processing machines and computer is eligible for extra shift allowance despite the fact that Appendix-I, III(O)(3) of the Income-tax Rules clearly prohibit granting extra shift allowance on both the above items ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on data processing machine/computer even though the assessee is not engaged in any of the activities mentioned in sec. 32A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 but only acts as intending agent for foreign companies ? The High Court referred to its decision in CIT V/s. I.B.M. World Trade Corpn., 1981 130 ITR(Bom.) 7391 and observed that the answers to the questions were self-evident.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel and seen the judgment afore-mentioned. It seems to us that questions of law certainly arise and they ought to be referred to the High Court for a decision thereon. In rendering it, the High Court may take into consideration the judgment afore-mentioned but we do not think that it is correct to say that it furnishes a self-evident answer to the questions.
(3.) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The application of the revenue u/s. 256(2) is allowed. The Tribunal shall refer the questions quoted above to the High Court, having drawn up the requisite statement of case.;