Case LawHigh Court › Anil Starch Products Ltd v. Commissioner...

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/-
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Get help with an income-tax notice → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan