Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shah Knitwear Industries Pvt Ltd
High Court
11 Jul 1996 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shah Knitwear Industries Pvt Ltd
Date of order
11 Jul 1996
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shah Knitwear Industries 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.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 46 of 1994
For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN ============================================================ -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXVersus SHAH KNITWEAR INDUSTRIES 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: 11/07/96ORAL JUDGEMENT��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, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of cash subsidy should not be deducted from the cost of machineries for the purpose of allowing depreciation and investment allowance and relief under section 80-J ?" 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.