Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Niyupurine Plastics Pvt. Ltd
High Court
11 Jul 1996 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Niyupurine Plastics Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
11 Jul 1996
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Niyupurine Plastics Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (1996) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: This reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
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 209 of 1994
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN
============================================================
-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVersus NIYUPURINE PLASTICS PVT. LTD.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN
Date of decision: 11/07/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT(Per B. C. Patel,J.) �At the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred to this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 : -
"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the I.T.O. not to deduct the amount of subsidy received from the cost of assets for the purpose of calculating depreciation and investment allowance ?"
2.�The Tribunal decided the controversy following the decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Grace Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1990) 183 ITR 591. This case is also covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.J.Chemicals, reported in 210 ITR 830. Hence, the question is required to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. Accordingly, we answer the question in favour
of the Assessee and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of 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.