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 2, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs Deepak Nitrite Limited - Opponent(S) on 26 August, 2008

Author: K.A.Puj

Bench: K.A.Puj

         TAXAP/51220/2008                        1/2                                                  ORDER


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                               TAX APPEAL No. 512 of 2008


         =========================================================
              THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)
                                   Versus
                    DEEPAK NITRITE LIMITED - Opponent(s)
         =========================================================
         Appearance :
         MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1,MR MANISH R BHATT for
         Appellant(s) : 1,
         None for Opponent(s) : 1,
         =========================================================
                     CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ

                               and

                               HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA



                                     Date : 26/08/2008


                                        ORAL ORDER

(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)

1. Heard Manish R. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel with Mrs.Mauna Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Revenue. This Appeal is admitted in terms of the following substantial question of law.

"(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provision made for difference between the book value and the realizable value of the plant by sheer estimate, without any scientific or intelligible basis, was not a 'provision' in HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Fri Jun 10 01:40:33 IST 2016 TAXAP/51220/2008 2/2 ORDER terms of clause (c) of the Explanation below Section 115JA(2) of the Income-tax Act or, in any case, was not a 'reserve' in terms of clause (b) of the Explanation?
(B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in seeking to derive the meaning of the expression used in the Explanation below Section 115JA(2) of the Income-tax Act from rule 7 in Schedule-VI of the Companies Act when the scheme and the purpose of the two are quite different?"

2. Issue notice to the other side. Additional paper book, if any, be filed within three months from today.

                              (K. A. PUJ, J.)                        (B. N. MEHTA, J.)
         kks




HC-NIC                                 Page 2 of 2            Created On Fri Jun 10 01:40:33 IST 2016