Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Chemicoat Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 58 of 1992 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus CHEMICOAT LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 58 of 1992 MR AKIL KURESHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 06/11/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) �In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for our opinion in respect of assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 :- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the expenses of Rs.5,30,101/- for A.Y. 1982-83 and Rs.4,19,722/- for A.Y. 1983-84 incurred by the assessee for setting up a new unit was allowable as a revenue expenditure ?" 2.�We have heard Mr Akil Kureshi, learned counsel for the revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee. 3.�Our attention is invited to the decision dated 20.12.1999 of this Court in Income-tax Reference Nos. 260 and 333 of 1984 between the revenue and this very assessee on the same controversy for assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. In the said decision, this Court held that the amount spent by the Company was to be treated as revenue expenditure. 4.�Following the aforesaid decision, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5.�The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. �����(M.S. Shah, J.) �����(D.A. Mehta, J.) sundar/-