COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PUSHPA ENTERPRISES

ITR/246/1985HC GujaratGJHC24012375198525 July 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the revenue at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax against the assessee, Pushpa Enterprises. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B", had passed an order that is under challenge. The core of the dispute revolves around the tax treatment of a subsidy received by the assessee. The revenue sought a reference to the High Court on a specific question of law concerning this subsidy.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question referred by the Tribunal was squarely answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., 210 I.T.R. 830. Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This means the Tribunal was correct in its view that the subsidy received could not be treated as part of the cost of fixed assets met by the Government, and consequently, the assessee was entitled to depreciation, additional depreciation, and investment allowance on the full cost of the assets without deducting the subsidy amounts. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of subsidy received in the Year could not be treated as part of the cost of the fixed assets met by the Government and therefore the assessee would be entitled to benefits of depreciation, additional depreciation and investment allowance on the cost of these without deduction of the subsidy amounts received? The revenue's contention, as reflected in the referred question, is that the subsidy received should be deducted from the cost of fixed assets, thereby reducing the eligible amount for depreciation, additional depreciation, and investment allowance. The assessee's argument, implied by the Tribunal's decision and the revenue's challenge, is that the subsidy is not part of the cost of the assets met by the government and therefore the full cost should be the basis for these allowances. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of each side beyond framing the question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 246 of 1985

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ============================================================ 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? : NO -------------

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 →