1990 PLP 240 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus BHATINDA CHEMICALS AND BANASPATI MILLS (Pvt.) Ltd.
| Citation | 1990 PLP 240 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab and Haryana High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | V. Ramaswami C.J. and G.R. Majithia, J |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus BHATINDA CHEMICALS AND BANASPATI MILLS (Pvt.) Ltd. |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 240 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 240 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court (India) bench comprising: V. Ramaswami C.J. and G.R. Majithia, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 240 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus BHATINDA CHEMICALS AND BANASPATI MILLS (Pvt.) Ltd.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 25th August, 1988.. .
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Reference‑‑Central subsidy received towards cost of plant and machinery‑ Tribunal holding the same as not deductible from cost for working out depreciation, investment allowance and deduction‑‑No question of law arises. L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. S.S. Mahajan for the Assessee.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Reference‑‑Central subsidy received towards cost of plant and machinery‑ Tribunal holding the same as not deductible from cost for working out depreciation, investment allowance and deduction‑‑No question of law arises. L.K. Sood for the Commissioner. S.S. Mahajan for the Assessee. Date of hearing: 25th August, 1988.. . "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of section 43(1) of the Income‑tax Act, 1961, the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that central subsidy of Rs. 5,90,176 received by the assessee from the Government was not a contribution, directly or indirectly, towards the cost of plant and machinery and was, accordingly, not to be reduced from the cost thereof for working out admissible depreciation, investment allowance and deduction under section 80J?" No question of law arises. The petition is dismissed. No costs. Z.S./703/T dismissed.