2001 PLP 2425 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus HICO PRODUCTS (P.) LTD.
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2425 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 247 I T R 797 |
| Bench Members | M. Srinivasan and U. C. Banerjee, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus HICO PRODUCTS (P.) LTD. |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2425 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2425 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 247 I T R 797 bench comprising: M. Srinivasan and U. C. Banerjee, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2425 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus HICO PRODUCTS (P.) LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Dhruv Mehta and B.K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Appellant.
- B.Y. Kulkami, Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated October 4, 1990 of the Bombay High Court in I. T. R. No. 343 of 1975 and W. P No. 1236 of 1980). ‑‑‑‑Depreciation‑‑‑Scientific research expenditure‑‑‑Are basically of same nature‑‑‑Double allowance not intended‑‑Retrospective amendment clarificatory and valid‑‑‑Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32 & 35(2)(iv)‑‑‑Indian Finance (No.2) Act, 1980‑‑‑Constitution of India, Arts. 14 & 19(1)(g)‑‑‑[CIT v. Hico Products (P.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 517 reversed]. The retrospective provisions of the Finance (No.21 Act, 1980, providing that where a deduction for scientific expenditure has been allowed in respect of a capital asset to an assessee under section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no depreciation shall be allowed on that capital asset for the same or any other previous year is merely clarificatory and valid. Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) fol. Held, that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in holding that depreciation allowance should be given to the assessee even though full scientific research expenditure allowance under section 35 had been given to the assessee in respect of its laboratory in earlier years. CIT v. Hico Products (P.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 517 reversed.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Depreciation‑‑‑Scientific research expenditure‑‑‑Are basically of same nature‑‑‑Double allowance not intended‑‑Retrospective amendment clarificatory and valid‑‑‑Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.32 & 35(2)(iv)‑‑‑Indian Finance (No.2) Act, 1980‑‑‑Constitution of India, Arts. 14 & 19(1)(g)‑‑‑[CIT v. Hico Products (P.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 517 reversed]. The retrospective provisions of the Finance (No.21 Act, 1980, providing that where a deduction for scientific expenditure has been allowed in respect of a capital asset to an assessee under section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, no depreciation shall be allowed on that capital asset for the same or any other previous year is merely clarificatory and valid. Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR 43 (SC) fol. Held, that the Appellate Tribunal was wrong in holding that depreciation allowance should be given to the assessee even though full scientific research expenditure allowance under section 35 had been given to the assessee in respect of its laboratory in earlier years. CIT v. Hico Products (P.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 517 reversed. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Dhruv Mehta and B.K. Prasad, Advocate with him) for Appellant. B.Y. Kulkami, Advocate for Respondent. It is represented that the dispute is covered by the judgment of this Court in Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India (1993) 199 ITR
43. The matter is decided in favour of the Revenue. Consequently, these appeals have to be allowed. As a result thereof the judgment of High Court in W. P. No. 1236 of 1980 (see (1991) 187 ITR 517), is set aside and the writ petition stands dismissed. Further the said reference answered by the High Court in CIT v. Hico Products (P.) Ltd. (1991) 187 ITR 517 (I.T.R. No.343 of 1975), in favour of the assessee is erroneous and the said reference is answered in favour of the Revenue. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No costs. M.B.A./996/FC Appeals allowed