The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S.polychem Ltd
High Court
29 Aug 2007 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S.polychem Ltd
Date of order
29 Aug 2007
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S.polychem Ltd, the High Court (2007) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the possibility of exploitation of scientific formula received from Shri Ram Institute is itself a research u/s.35 of the I.T.Act?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
(-1-)
MGN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.23 OF 1990
The Commissioner of Income-tax...Applicant
Vs.
M/s.Polychem Ltd. ..Respondents
Mr. A.S. Rao for the Applicant
Mr. S.I. Mehta, for the respondetns.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2007
CORAM: F.I.
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED: 29TH AUGUST, 2007
P.C.:
P.C.:
. The following three questions were referred
by the Tribunal:-
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in law in holding that the possibility
of exploitation of scientific formula
received from Shri Ram Institute is itself a
research u/s.35 of the I.T.Act?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in law in holding that the assessee is
entitled to relief u/s.35 of the I.T,. Act
and in respect of the expenditure incurred
for the formula and process developed by
(-2-)
Shri Ram Institute while the assessee
incurred expenditure on pilot plant for
technical and financial viability of
producing final product?
4. Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the tribunal was
right in law in holding that water shortage
ponds are ’plant’ and entitled to
depreciation, extra shift allowance and
development rebate under the provisions of
the I.T. Act, 1961?"
At the hearing of this reference on behalf of the
respondent learned Counsel points out that the case
decided by this Court on 14th August, 1997 in ITR
No.419 of 1983 question No.2 in that judgment would
cover questions 1 and 2. On behalf of Applicant the
same is not disputed.
. In so far as question No.4 is concerned, it
is then contended that the same is covered by the
judgment of this Court in 217 ITR 622 (Bom.) and 207
ITR 494 (Bom.). Learned Counsel for the Applicant
does not dispute the same.
2. Considering the above reference answered in
favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
(-3-)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)
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.