COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD.

ITR/27/1987

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income-Tax versus Garden Silk Mills Ltd., where two main questions were referred to the High Court of Gujarat concerning the assessment year 1977-78. The first question pertained to the entitlement of the assessee to a deduction for a sum paid to I.T. Practitioners, and the second question concerned the entitlement to higher depreciation and extra shift allowance for an electrical transformer. The court referenced a prior decision which concluded against the assessee on the first question and found statutory provisions clearly supporting the revenue's position on the second question.

• Counselvise Citation: [2001] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 718414 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2001
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Income Tax Reference No. 89 of 1985
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: B B NAIK; MANISH SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: R P BHATT
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Deduction; Depreciation; Extra shift allowance; Income Tax; Electrical Transformer
• Section: 80VV

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 27 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH 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 GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 27 of 1987 MR RP BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 MR BB NAIK with MR MANISH J SHAH for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 05/09/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) The following questions are referred to us at the instance of the revenue in respect of assessment year 1977-78 :- \"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that notwithstanding the provisions of Sec. 80VV of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee was entitled to a deduction in respect of sum of Rs.12,550 paid by the assessee to the I.T. Practitioners in respect of proceedings of M/s. Garden Silk Weaving Factory ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to higher depreciation and extra shift allowance in respect of electrical transformer ?\" 2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, the learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy raised herein is concluded against the assessee by the decision dated 14.11.2000 of this Court in Income Tax Reference No. 89 of 1985. Following the said decision, we answer the question in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 3. Coming to question No. 2, the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Rules, Appendix I, Part I for the relevant assessment year read as under :- \"The extra shift allowance shall not be allowed in respect of ... ... ... and also in respect of the following items of machinery and plant to which the general rate of depreciation of 10 per cent applies :- (1) Electrical machinery - Switch-gear and instruments, transformers and other stationary plant and wiring and fittings of electric light and fan installations.\" In view of the above clear statutory provision, the Tribunal clearly erred in law in coming to the conclusion that that the assessee was entitled to higher depreciation and extra shift allowance in respect of electrical transformer. We accordingly answer the question in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (M.S. Shah, J.) (D.A. Mehta, J.) sundar/- "