Case LawHigh Court › Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vad...

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vadodara 1 v. Gujarat Alkalies And Chemicals Ltd

High Court 17 Sep 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vadodara 1 v. Gujarat Alkalies And Chemicals Ltd
Date of order
17 Sep 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Vadodara 1 v. Gujarat Alkalies And Chemicals Ltd, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: This Tax Appeal is dismissed accordingly.

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 R/TAX APPEAL No. 1148 of 2018 ============================================================= PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VADODARA 1VersusGUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD ============================================================= Appearance :Mr. VARUN K.PATEL, Advocate for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ============================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA17[th] September 2018 ORAL ORDER(PER : HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“Tribunal” for short] dated 19[th] March 2018 raising the following questions for our consideration:- [A]“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in law and on facts in upholding the decision of CIT [A] which was merely based upon the rule of consistency without considering the issue on merits of the case and it was to delete the addition made on account of expenses incurred for replacement of re- the same membraning cells-II, treatingas Capital Expenditure ?” [B]“Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the ITAT has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that membranes were integral part of the plant without which the plant cannot function effectively and that it has enduring benefit for atleast 2 to 3 years ?” Though two questions are framed, the issue is one and concerns expenditure incurred by the respondent-assessee for replacement of membranes in the machinery. Revenue argued that the expenditure should be treated as capital in nature. We notice that the Division Bench of this Court in earlier years concerning the same assessee in Tax Appeal No. 577 of 2016 considered such suggested question, but refused to entertain it under an order dated 1[st] August 2016. This Tax Appeal is dismissed accordingly. Prakash [Akil Kureshi, J.][B.N Karia, J.]
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan