The Bombay High Court disposed of an Income Tax Reference by relying on the Division Bench judgment in C.I.T. vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., affirming the views in favour of the assessee regarding depreciation and subsidy deduction, without making an order as to costs.
Reference disposed of in favour of the assessee with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE.
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 470 OF 1998..
The Commissioner of Income-tax,
City-VII, Bombay. .. Applicant,
vs.
M/s Sheth Industrial Corp. . .. Respondent.
Shri A.S. Rao for the Applicant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM: V.C.DAGA &
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED: 22-3-2005.
P.C.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. The
Tribunal has referred the questions for the opinion of
this Court reading as under:
1. " Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in law in directing the I.T.O. to allow
depreciation on the cost of assets held by the
assessee?"
2. "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was
right in law in holdindg that subsidy,
calculated in relation to the investment by
the assessee in fixed asssets, plant &
machinery etc. and received by the assessee,
should be deducted from the cost of assets for
allowing depreciation?"
3. Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has
overlooked the fact that the cost of the
depreciable assets to the assessee is the
actual cost to the assessee, after deducting
the subsidy received from the Govt.?"
2. The above questions have already been answered by
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.I.T.
vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 210 I.T.R. 830 (SC)
in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and
against the revenue. In this view of the matter,
reference stands disposed of in terms of that judgment
with no order as to costs.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal was right in directing the I.T.O. to allow depreciation on the cost of assets held by the assessee?
Whether subsidy should be deducted from the cost of assets for allowing depreciation?
Whether the cost of depreciable assets should be the actual cost after deducting the subsidy received from the Govt??
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.I.T. vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.Relied on¶13
(1994) 210 I.T.R. 830 (SC)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Income-tax, City-VII, Bombay
M/s Sheth Industrial Corp.
V.C. Daga
J.P. Devadhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court