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.
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.
******
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.