1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.766 OF 1998 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City VI, Bombay .. Applicant. V/s. Petron Civil Engg. Pvt.Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr.A.S. Rao i/b. Mr.Pankaj Kapoor for the applicant. Ms.A. Khan for the respondent. CORAM : V.C. DAGA & CORAM : V.C. DAGA & CORAM : V.C. DAGA & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 5TH APRIL, 2005. DATED : 5TH APRIL, 2005. DATED : 5TH APRIL, 2005. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The Tribunal has referred following question for the opinion of this Court reading as under : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in allowing assessee’s claim for investment allowance u/s.32A even though the company is engaged in the business of contract work of civil engineering construction ? 2. The above question has already been answered by the Apex Court in the case of CIT V/s. N.C. CIT V/s. N.C. CIT V/s. N.C. Bhudhharaja & Co. [(1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC)] Bhudhharaja & Co. [(1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC)] Bhudhharaja & Co. [(1993) 204 ITR 412 (SC)] against the assessee in favour of the revenue. In this view of the matter, question stands answered in negative for the reasons stated in the case of N.C. Bhudhharaja & Co. Reference, accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. 2 *********