Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/S. Industrial Cables (India) Limited Rajpura

High Court 24 Sep 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · phhc
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/S. Industrial Cables (India) Limited Rajpura
Date of order
24 Sep 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala v. M/S. Industrial Cables (India) Limited Rajpura, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: The reference is disposed of accordingly.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITR No. 170 of 1989 (O&M) The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala vs M/s. Industrial Cables (India) Limited Rajpura ....Appellant ...Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar GoelHon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Tejinder K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal,J. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh(hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) on direction of this court has referredthe following question of law for opinion under Section 256 (2) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) arising out of its order dated 15.5.1986 in R. A.No. 138 of 1986 arising out of I. T. A. No. 900 of 1984, in respect of theassessment year 1978-79:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in allowinginitial depreciation on cooperative store and dairywhich items have not been specifically mentioned insection 32 (1) (iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” A perusal of paper-book shows that the amount of depreciationinvolved in the present case is merely ` 12,966/-, as referred to in para 8 of theorder by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh. The tax effectwill further be quite meager and the assessment year is 32 years old. Consideringthe aforesaid facts, we return the question unanswered. The reference is disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal)Judge 24.9.2010 vs (Adarsh Kumar Goel)Judge
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan