In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Gujarat Insecticides Ltd, the High Court (1998) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: Reference is accordingly disposed of.
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 38 of 1995
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and sd/-
MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL sd/-
============================================================
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 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
1 to 5 No
--------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
GUJARAT INSECTICIDES LTD.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner
Notice served for respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and
MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
Date of decision: 30/07/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT
�The following question is referred for the opinion of
this Court:
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cost of the assets should not be reduced by the assessee for the purpose of calculating the depreciation and investment allowance?"
�A similar question has been answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. P.J. CHEMICALS LTD., 210 ITR 830.
�The question referred to us, therefore, is answered in the affirmative, i.e. favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Reference is accordingly disposed of. 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.