Anil Starch Products Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax
High Court
04 Oct 2001 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Anil Starch Products Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Date of order
04 Oct 2001
Assessment year(s)
1981-82
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Anil Starch Products Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2001) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- ANIL STARCH PRODUCTS LTD.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 67 of 1987
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO
-------------------------------------------------------------- ANIL STARCH PRODUCTS LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 67 of 1987
MR MANISH J SHAH for Petitioner No. 1
MR MIHIR H JOSHI for MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date of decision: 04/10/2001
(Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
�In this reference at the instance of the
assessee, the following question is referred for our
opinion in respect of assessment year 1981-82:-
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the bonus share issue expenses of
Rs.76,584/- were allowable revenue expenditure or
capital expenditure?"
2.�We have heard Mr. M.J. Shah learned counsel for
the applicant-assessee and Mr. Mihir H. Joshi learned
counsel for the revenue.
3.�The learned counsel point out that the
controversy raised herein is concluded by this Court in
favour of the revenue in the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes
Ltd. 210 ITR 358.
�We accordingly answer the question in the
negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the
assessee.
4.�The Reference accordingly stands disposed of with
no order as to costs.
�����(M.S. Shah,J)
�����(D.A. Mehta,J)
zgs/-
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.