In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Ishwar Arts, 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 19 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
ISHWAR ARTS
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 is right in law in
holding that the amount of subsidy should not be
deducted from the cost of the assets for the
purpose of working out the investment allowance
and depreciation?"
�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. in 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.