- (1.) THE following questions of law have been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Tribunal, Chandigarh, arising out "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim for Rs. 2,36,935 on account of 'leave with wages' in spite of the fact that it was simply a provision and a contingent liability ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim for depreciation and investment allowance on grain analysers despite the fact that there was no proof of its use in the industrial undertaking ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the refinery units at Ludhiana and Madras as 'industrial undertaking' for the purposes of investment allowance and deduction under s. 80J with respect thereto ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of law/rules, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing investment allowance on electrical installations such as exhaust fans and humidifiers ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing tour expenses of Rs. 77,713 as revenue expenditure despite the fact that they were incurred for the import of machinery (capital asset) -
(2.) FOLLOWING our earlier judgment in CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (2006) 206 CTR (P&H) 144 : (2007) 289 ITR 261 against the Revenue.
(3.) WE find that question No. 1, herein, was question No. 6 in the said judgment. It was held : "As regards question No. 6 is concerned, it is covered by a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 325 : (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC), which was followed even in the assessee's own case in CIT vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. (2002) 174 CTR (P&H) 242 : (2002) 254 ITR 666 (P&H). No contrary view has been shown on behalf of the Revenue. Accordingly, following the said judgment, we answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." Question Nos. 2 and 4, herein, were identical to question No. 5 in the said judgment. It was held : "As regards question No. 5 is concerned, it is covered by a judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Starlight Silk Mills (P) Ltd. (2005) 199 CTR (Guj) 718 : (2006) 280 ITR 257 (Guj) taking a view that air -conditioning plants, electric installation and transformers form integral part of plant and machinery, hence investment allowance is available on the same. No contrary view has been shown by learned counsel for the Revenue. Keeping in view the findings of facts recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal to the effect that humidifiers in wool chambers are part of plant and following the judgment referred to above, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." ;