COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO.

ITR/102/1987HC GujaratGJHC24011835198714 February 2002Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.PUJ8 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This case involves Income Tax Reference Nos. 102 and 102-A of 1987, arising from appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for assessment year 1973-74. The references were made at the instance of the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) for the High Court of Gujarat's opinion on several questions of law. The ITAT had previously decided these matters in favour of the assessee, Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. The procedural history involves ITAT Reference Applications stemming from Income Tax Appeals filed by both the assessee and the Department. The High Court is now examining the ITAT's decisions on various claims made by the assessee, including investment allowance, guest house expenses, development rebate, and depreciation on specific assets.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held on Question 1 that the Tribunal was not right in upholding the claim for investment allowance on compound walls and fencing, following its own decision in CIT vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. (219 ITR 550), which held that buildings like compound walls are not eligible for development rebate or investment allowance as they are not plant. Question 2 was not fully recorded in the provided text, but it appears the Tribunal had allowed guest house expenses. The Court noted an earlier decision in the assessee's own case where guest house expenses were upheld. Question 3 was not fully recorded. For Question 4, the Court implicitly agreed with the Revenue by answering Question 1 negatively, suggesting depreciation on fencing at the rate of plant was incorrect. For Question 5, the Court held the assessee was entitled to development rebate on the affluent system and instruments, citing its own decision in 219 ITR 550 for the affluent system and a previous year's decision for instruments. However, it denied development rebate on telephone equipment, following CIT vs. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. (203 ITR 526). For Question 6, the Court held the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the lunch room, extension of the canteen, and partition wall, finding these items covered by Section 32(1)(iv) of the Act.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions: 1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in upholding the assessee's claim for investment allowance on compound walls and fencing (Section 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether guest house expenses of Rs. 1,84,197 were disallowable under Section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the assessee was entitled to an allowance of Rs. 24,375 in light of the Gujarat High Court's decision in M/s. Patel Bros. (106 ITR 424) and if the expenditure was not hit by Section 37(2B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on fact in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on fencing at the rate applicable to plant (Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 5. Whether the assessee was entitled to development rebate on affluent system, telephone equipment, and instruments, as per the Tribunal's reasons or otherwise (Section 33 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 6. Whether the assessee was entitled to depreciation on a lunch room, extension of canteen, and partition wall (Section 32(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued for entitlement to investment allowance on compound walls and fencing, deduction for guest house expenses, allowance for Rs. 24,375, depreciation on fencing, development rebate on affluent system, telephone equipment, instruments, and depreciation on lunch room, canteen extension, and partition wall. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that investment allowance should not be allowed on compound walls and fencing, guest house expenses are disallowable under Section 37(4), and depreciation on fencing should not be at the rate of plant. The Revenue also argued against development rebate on telephone equipment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 33,Section 37(4),Section 37(2B),Section 32,Section 32(1)(iv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 102 of 1987

With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 102-A of 1987

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI

and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ

========================================================= 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES 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 C

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 33

All 73 judgments and leading authorities on Section 33 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →