JUDGMENT
M. Rama Jois, J.
1. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka, has presentd this petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, praying for the issue of a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, to draw up a statement of case and refer the following five questions of law for the opinion of this court :
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who directed the Income-tax Officer to grant investment allowance without deducting the subsidy received from the Government from the cost of the assets ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that depreciation should be granted without deducting the subsidy amount of Rs. 15 lakhs from the cost of the plant and machinery ?
3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who held that the amount of Rs. 1,25,797 paid as compensation to agriculturists is allowable as revenue expenditure ?
4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who deleted the addition of Rs. 39,02,450 made by the Income-tax Officer in respect of revaluation of closing stock of iron ore ?
5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) who deleted the interest of Rs. 37,53,090 by relying on the decision of the Mysore High court in the case of United Breweries [1973] 89 ITR 17 and other decisions which have no application to the case ?”
2. As far as question No.(4) is concerned it is not a question of law which we should call for reference. As far as questions Nos.(1),(2),(3) and (5) are concerned, in our view, such questions of law do arise for consideration and, accordingly, we make the following order :
(i) The civil petition is allowed.
(ii) A direction shall issue to the Tribunal to draw up a statement of case and refer questions Nos. (1),(2),(3) and (5) for the opinion of this court.
