COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PARAMOUNT POLLUTION CONTROL (PVT) LTD.

ITR/79/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022404199517 January 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) filed an Income Tax Reference before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The assessment year in question is 1986-87, corresponding to the accounting period ending on December 31, 1985. The core of the dispute revolves around the assessee's entitlement to investment allowance on the cost of a computer. The Revenue was represented by learned Standing Counsel, while the respondent-assessee, Paramount Pollution Control (Pvt) Ltd., did not appear despite being served.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the reference in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue had conceded that the issue was concluded against the Revenue by this Court's prior decision in the assessee's own case. This prior decision had followed the High Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Professional Information Systems and Management (2005) 274 ITR 242. Therefore, applying the ratio of these precedents, the Court held that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance on the cost of the computer. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance on the cost of the computer? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded as no appearance was made. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue fairly conceded that the controversy in the present case was concluded against the Revenue by a decision of the High Court in the assessee's own case (Income Tax Reference No. 157 of 1993, decided on 15/06/2005). This decision followed an earlier ruling in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Professional Information Systems and Management (2005) 274 ITR 242.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/79/1995 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 79 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI =============================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Applicant(s) Versus PARAMOUNT POLLUTION CONTROL (PVT) LTD. - Respondent(s) =============================================== Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, =============================================

ITR/79/1995 2/4 JUDGMENT CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 17/01/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI) 1 The Income Tax Appellat

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →