IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 140 OF 1997 TAX REFERENCE NO. 140 OF 1997 TAX REFERENCE NO. 140 OF 1997 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City-IV, Bombay. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Sun-N-Sand Hotel (P) Ltd. ... Respondent. P.S.Sahadevan with Suresh Kumar for the appellant. Ms.Beena Pillai i/b. D.M.Harish & Co. for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 23rd April 2009. : 23rd April 2009. : 23rd April 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant. None for the respondent. 2. In this reference, the following question are referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this "1. Whether on the facts circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing extra shift allowance u/s. 32(1)(b)(iia) in respect of plant and machinery used in a hotel business? 2. "Whether on the fac circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Tribunal is right in allowing investment allowance u/s. 32A in respect of plant and machinery installed in hotel? 3. Learned counsel for both parties agree that the aforesaid questions are covered by the judgments of the Apex Court. 4. So far as first question is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. v. C.I.T. East India Hotels Ltd. v. C.I.T. East India Hotels Ltd. v. C.I.T., (1997) 223 ITR 1. Accordingly, the first question is answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the reasons recorded in the said judgment. 5. So far as second question is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Hotels Co.Ltd. v. I.T.O. Indian Hotels Co.Ltd. v. I.T.O. Indian Hotels Co.Ltd. v. I.T.O., (2000) 245 ITR 538. Accordingly, this question is answered in negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee for the reasons recorded in the said judgment. 6. Reference stands disposed of accordingly. (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) J.) J.) (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA J.) J.) J.)