- (1.) The Tribunal, Jaipur has referred the following question of law arising out of its order dt. 31st March, 1981 in respect of asst. yr. 1968-69 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that extra shift allowance equal to normal depreciation should be allowed for the full year in respect of the assets which were used during the year for more than 30 days but less than 180 days ?"
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed as per Expln. 1 appearing in the remarks Column 3 against Item No. III of Part I of Appendix. I to the IT Rules, as they stood during the accounting period relevant to the year 1968-69, extra shift allowance equal to normal depreciation should be allowed for the full year in respect of assets installed and used during the year for more than 30 days but less than 180 days. The claim was rejected by the ITO and the order of ITO was upheld by the AAC. The Tribunal following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. CIT, 1978) 118 ITR 629 allowed the claim of the assessee. The above question is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of assessee in DB IT Ref. No. (30 of 1983) CIT vs. Jaipur Udyog Pvt. Ltd. decided on (5th July, 1996) [Since reported at, 1996),136 CTR(Raj) 51].
(3.) Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.;