Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Windsor Foods Ltd
High Court
16 Jan 2001 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Windsor Foods Ltd
Date of order
16 Jan 2001
Assessment year(s)
1982-83
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Windsor Foods Ltd, the High Court (2001) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus WINDSOR FOODS LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BB NAIK for Petitioner MR RK PATEL for Respondent No.
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 42 of 1990
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO 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
WINDSOR FOODS LTD.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BB NAIK for Petitioner MR RK PATEL for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
and MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
Date of decision: 16/01/2001
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
�In this Reference, at the instance of the Revenue, following question is referred for our opinion in respect of Assessment Year 1982-83 :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in
coming to the conclusion that the assessee was
entitled to investment allowance on the amount of
Rs. 46,717/- being the additional liability due
to fluctuation in foreign exchange rate in
respect of the payments of outstanding
instalments of machinery ?"
2.�We have heard Mr. B.B.Naik, learned counsel for
the Revenue and Mr. R.K.Patel learned counsel for the
assessee. The learned counsel state that the controversy raised herein is concluded by the decision of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. WINDSOR FOODS LTD. (this very assessee) (1999) 235 ITR 249, wherein this Court has held as under :-
"The deduction of investment allowance can be
allowed in respect of the previous year in which
the machinery was installed or first put to use.
If the deduction becomes allowable in that
relevant previous year, the full investment
allowance is tobe worked out on the basis of the
actual cost of the machinery or plant to the
assessee at that relevant time. That
quantification of the amount at 25 per cent of
the actual cost to be allowed by way of deduction
as investment allowance got crystallised on the
basis of the actual cost and no change can be
made therein for that previous year on the basis
of any fluctuation that takes place in the
exchange rate in the subsequent years. The fact
that the investment allowance is carried forward
under sub-section (3) or that the reserve can be
created in any subsequent assessment year due to
insufficiency of profits in the earlier years
will not alter this situation. Therefore, no
question of revising the full amount of the
investment allowance which was already worked out
in the relevant previous year can ever arise by
virtue of any subsequent fluctuation in the
exchange rate."
3.�In view of the above principles laid down in the case of this very assessee, we answer the question in the
negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Reference accordingly stands disposes of, with no order as to costs.
�����(J.M.Panchal, J.)
�����( M.S.Shah, J. )
(patel)
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.