Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bharat Vij...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd

High Court 01 Aug 1996 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd
Date of order
01 Aug 1996
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd, the High Court (1996) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus BHARAT VIJAY MILLS LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BJ SHELAT for M/s MANISH R BHATT & Co., Advocates...

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 154 of 1984 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus BHARAT VIJAY MILLS LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BJ SHELAT for M/s MANISH R BHATT & Co., Advocates for Applicant. SERVED for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and �� MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN Date of decision: 01/08/96 ORAL JUDGEMENT �The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 55,322/- being deferred annuity premium paid in respect of two Managing Directors of the Company is rightly held to be a revenue expenditure and allowable as such?" 2.�In the case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in 210 ITR 358 similar question has been answered by the Court wherein the Court has held that the amount expended for purchase of the deferred annuity policy is revenue expenditure for which deduction can not be granted under Sec. 37 of the Income Tax Act. 3.�Hence, we answer this question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4.�Answer accordingly with no order as to costs. ******
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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