Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S.po...

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.)
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