COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS PEERLESS CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES (P.) LTD.
2001 P T D 2618
[248 I T R 178]
[Supreme Court of India]
Present: S. P. Bharucha, D. P. Mohapatra and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
versus
PEERLESS CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES (P.) LTD.
C. A. No. 1152 of 1995, decided on 01/11/2000.
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated January 9, 1990, of the Calcutta High Court in I.T.R. No.23 of 1985).
(a) Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Industrial company‑‑‑Investment allowance‑‑Assessee processing data on behalf of clients‑‑‑Industrial company‑‑‑Entitled to investment allowance in respect of generator installed by it‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.32A‑‑ Indian Finance Act, 1981, S.2(7)(c).
(b) Income‑tax‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑‑Powers of Supreme Court‑‑‑Supreme Court cannot assess primary material‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961.
Against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court holding the assessee entitled to investment allowance in respect of a generator on the ground that processing of data on behalf of its customers was processing of goods, the. Department appealed to the Supreme Court:
Held, that no judgment of a Court of this country or abroad taking the view that the processing of data is not the processing of goods, was produced. It was not the function of the Court to assess primary material. The primary material, if any, should have been placed before the Income‑tax Authorities or the Tribunal the assessee was an industrial company entitled to investment allowance in respect of the generator installed by it.
CIT v. Peerless' Consultancy Services (Pvt.) Ltd. .(1990) 186 ITR 609 affirmed.
CIT v. Datacons (P.) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 66 (Kar.) and CIT v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. t 1993) 201 ITR 17 (Cal.) ref.
Ranbir Chandra, Rajiv Nanda, S.K. Dwivedi, R.N. Verma and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant.
S.V. Deshpande, Manisli Singhvi, Pramit Saxena and Ms. Anuradha Rastogi, Advocates for,Respondents.
ORDER
We have read the judgment under appeal. The Appellate. Assistant Commissioner 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 v. Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (1993) 201 ITR 17 which, in turn, has referred to the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Data Cons (P.) Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 66.
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 Income‑tax Authorities or the Tribunal.
The civil appeal is dismissed with costs.
M.B.A./943/FCAppeal dismissed.