In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S.crown Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance, the High Court (1997) 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 M/S.CROWN PRODUCTS -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MIHIR JOSHI for Petitioner MR NR DIVETIA for Respondent...
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 APPLICATION No 79 of 1997
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
============================================================
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
M/S.CROWN PRODUCTS -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR MIHIR JOSHI for Petitioner
MR NR DIVETIA for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
Date of decision: 22/12/97
ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per R.K.Abichandani,J.)
�Heard both the sides. The following question of
law arises for our opinion:-
"Whether, the appellate Tribunal is right in law
and on facts in confirming the order made by the
CIT (A) allowing the assessee's claim for
depreciation and investment allowance at the higher rate on proportionate basis when the provisions to Rule 5 had been deleted with effect
from 2.4.1987?"
�The Tribunal is therefore, directed to furnish statement of case in respect of the aforesaid question. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to
costs.
----
*/Mohandas
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.