JUDGMENT In the Allahabad High Court M. Katju & Prakash Krishna, JJ.
By the Court This is income-tax reference under section 256(1) of Income Tax Act in which following question has been referred to us for our opinion :
"Whether as the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in not sustaining the disallowance of repair expenses of a guest house under the provision of section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act?"
2. Learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No.1) (1989) 177 ITR 124 (Bom) which has been followed in the decision ins 187 ITR 660 (Bom)(sic); CIT v. Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 608 (Guj); CIT v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. (1992) 197 ITR 538 (Guj); Bihar Institute of Mining & Mine Surveying v. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 608 (pat) etc.
2. Learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Chase Bright Steel Ltd. (No.1) (1989) 177 ITR 124 (Bom) which has been followed in the decision ins 187 ITR 660 (Bom)(sic); CIT v. Kaira District Co-operative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. (1991) 192 ITR 608 (Guj); CIT v. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd. (1992) 197 ITR 538 (Guj); Bihar Institute of Mining & Mine Surveying v. CIT (1994) 208 ITR 608 (pat) etc.
3. We have carefully perused the above decisions and we are in respectful agreement with the same. In view of the above we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in the favour of the assessee and against the department.
3. We have carefully perused the above decisions and we are in respectful agreement with the same. In view of the above we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in the favour of the assessee and against the department.