(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated April 25, 1984 of the Madras High Court in T.C. No.68 of 1980).

Income-tax----

----Depreciation---Extra shift allowance---Mode of calculation---Extra shift allowance to be calculated on the basis of the number of days during which the concern actually worked double shift or triple shift---Extra shift allowance not to be calculated on the basis of the number of days a particular item of plant or machinery had worked double shift or triple shift---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32---Indian Income Tax Rules, 1962, Appx.I.

Held, that the assessee was entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of the machinery added during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 on the basis of double and triple shifts worked by the entire concern.

South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 286 (SC) fol.

South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 206 (Mad.) and CIT v. South India Viscose Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 674 (Mad.) ref.

Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellant.

Dr. V. Gaurishankar, Senior Advocate (B. Krishna Prasad and S. Rajappa, Advocates with him) for Respondent.

JUDGMENT

S. C. AGRAWAL, J. ---This appeal by the assessee is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madras, dated April 25, 1984 whereby the following question was answered in the negative, i.e. against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the

assessee is entitled to extra shift allowance in respect of the machineries added during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1970-71 on the basis of double and triple shifts worked by the entire concern?"

The High Court has placed reliance on its earlier judgment dated April 24, 1984, in T.C. No.1053-54 of 1979, CIT v. South India Viscose Ltd. (1987) 163 ITR 674 which was based on the judgment in South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 135 ITR 206 (Mad.) Civil Appeals Nos.3179-81/82 (South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 286) filed against the said judgment of the High Court reported in South India Viscose Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 13.5 ITR 206 (Mad.) have been allowed by our judgment pronounced today and a similar question has been answered in the affirmative. For the reasons given in the said judgment of this Court the question referred must be answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No. order as to costs.

M.B.A./1493/FC Appeal allowed.