Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

The vs Gujarat on 26 August, 2010

   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/113/2008	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 113 of 2008
 

 
 
=========================================


 

THE
ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ANAND CIRCLE,ANAND - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

GUJARAT
CO.OP. MILLK MKTG. FEDERATION LTD. - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
KM PARIKH for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
MRS SWATI SOPARKAR for Opponent(s) :
1, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 26/04/2010 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER 

(Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI) While admitted the appeal on 3rd March 2008, the following question of law had been formulated by the Court :

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in law in holding that assessee is entitled to claim depreciation on the 30% of the value of the plant and machinery received by way of grant from NDDB under 70% Loan and 30% Grant Scheme?
The assessment year is 1999-2000. As can be seen from the impugned order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal has merely followed its earlier order made in relation to assessment year 2000-2001.
Moreover, it is an accepted position between the parties that the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by a decision of this High Court in the case of Mahesana District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2002) 258 ITR 780, whereby the question has been answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue.

In the light of the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

[D.A.MEHTA, J.] [HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*     Top