COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. DEEPAK PIPE FACTORY

PDF · subscribers
ITR/128/1985HC GujaratGJHC24012260198514 June 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in agreement with previous judgments, answered both referred questions in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. For the first question, concerning the admissibility of deductions under Sections 80HH and 80J without set-off, the Court noted that this Court had already opined in favour of the assessee in I.T.R. No. 282 of 1985. For the second question, regarding depreciation and investment allowance on machinery and building without deducting subsidy from the actual cost, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in C.I.T. Vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., reported in 210 I.T.R. 830, which had answered this question in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the reference was answered accordingly and disposed of with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Revenue) against Deepak Pipe Factory (Assessee) before the High Court of Gujarat. The reference was made under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following an order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A'. The core of the dispute revolves around two specific questions concerning deductions and allowances claimed by the assessee. The Revenue appeared through its counsel, Mr. Mihir Joshi, while no one appeared for the respondent assessee, despite due service. The Revenue's counsel conceded that both questions had been previously decided.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal referred two questions of law to the High Court for its opinion: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction under Section 80HH and Section 80J was admissible to the assessee in full, without deducting the amount admissible under Section 80HH from the amount admissible under Section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the building and machinery and investment allowance on machinery without deducting subsidy from their actual cost? Contentions: Revenue: The learned Advocate for the Revenue fairly submitted that both questions have already been decided by higher authorities. Assessee: No arguments were recorded for the assessee as no one appeared on their behalf.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 80HH,Section 80J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

))

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 128 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus DEEPAK PIPE FACTORY -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MIHIR JOSHI FOR MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

Date of decision: 14/06/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE)

1.

Following two questions have been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A" under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :

"

1.

Whether the Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that deduction u/s. 80HH and 80J was admissible to the assessee in full without deducting the amount admissible u/s. 80HH from the amount admissible u/s.80J of the Income-tax Act,1961?

2 Whether the Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on the building and machinery and investment allowance on machinery without deducting subsidy from their actual cost ?"

2.

We have heard learned Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appears for the respondent assessee though the respondent has been duly served. Looking to the facts of the case, learned Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi appearing for the Revenue has fairly submitted that both the questions have already been decided.

3.

So far as the first question is concerned, this Court has already opined in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by answering the question in the affirmative in I.T.R.No.282 of 1985 whereas so far as the second question is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court has m.m.bhatt.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 755 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →