Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Peerless Consultancy And Services Private Limited

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Peerless Consultancy And Services Private Limited

(Supreme Court Of India)

Civil Appeal No. 11552 Of 1995 | 01-11-2000

D P MOHAPATRA J.

BY THE COURT

We have read the judgment under appeal. The AAC and the Tribunal have granted to the respondent-company the benefit that an industrial company gets and accordingly, granted it investment allowance in respect of a generator installed by it. It has been held by them that when the respondent-company processes data on behalf of its clients, it processes goods

Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. 1990 CAL 137 (Cal) : TC 28R.210 which, in turn, has referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in CIT vs. Datacons (P) Ltd. 1984 KAR 88 (Kar) : TC 24R.231

Learned counsel for the Revenue has been unable to show us any judgment of a Court of this country or abroad which takes the view that the processing of data is not the processing of goods. He has sought to take us back to the primary material. It is not the function of this Court to assess such primary material. The primary material, if any, should have been placed before the IT authorities or the Tribunal

The civil appeal is dismissed with costs.

Advocate List
  • For
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE D. P. MOHAPATRA
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE S. P. BHARUCHA
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE Y. K. SABHARWAL
Eq Citations
  • [2001] 248 ITR 178
  • [2001] 116 TAXMAN 13 (SC)
  • (2001) 10 SCC 442
  • 2000 (7) SCALE 459
  • LQ/SC/2000/1549
Head Note

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Ss. 32(1)(i) & (ii) and 32A(1) — Investment allowance — When respondent-company processes data on behalf of its clients, it processes goods — Held, processing of data is processing of goods — Primary material, if any, should have been placed before IT authorities or Tribunal — Revenue unable to show any judgment of a Court of this country or abroad which takes the view that processing of data is not processing of goods — Primary material, if any, should have been placed before IT authorities or Tribunal — Held, it is not the function of Supreme Court to assess such primary material — Civil Appeal, dismissed with costs — IT Act, 1961, Ss. 32(1)(i) & (ii) and 32A(1) (Paras 1 and 2)