COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. RINKI HYDROCARBONS LTD.

ITR/95/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022420199522 January 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) directed the Income Tax Officer (ITO) not to deduct a subsidy amount from the written down value for computing depreciation and investment allowance. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (CIT) appealed this decision. The ITAT had relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT v. Grace Paper Industries Pvt. Limited. The Supreme Court, in CIT v. PJ Chemicals Ltd., also addressed a similar issue concerning Central subsidy and depreciation, agreeing with the majority view of High Courts, including Grace Paper's case. The High Court was asked to provide its opinion on the ITAT's direction.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the ITO not to deduct the subsidy amount from the written down value for computing depreciation and investment allowance. The reasoning is based on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. PJ Chemicals Ltd., which agreed with the Gujarat High Court's view in CIT v. Grace Paper Industries Pvt. Limited. The Supreme Court held that government subsidy is an incentive and does not partake of the character of a payment intended to meet the 'actual cost' of assets, directly or indirectly. Therefore, it should not be deducted from the cost of assets for calculating depreciation and investment allowance. The question referred to the High Court is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Reference stands disposed of.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the ITO not to deduct the subsidy amount from the written down value for computing depreciation and investment allowance, concerning Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments. However, the ITAT's decision, upheld by the High Court, implies the assessee argued that subsidy should not be deducted from the cost of assets for depreciation and investment allowance calculations. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the subsidy amount should be deducted from the written down value for computing depreciation and investment allowance. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court was based on challenging the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43(1),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 95 of 1995

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question 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?

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 43(1)

All 577 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →