SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Guj) 606

ANIL R.DAVE, D.A.MEHTA
G. K. CHOKSI AND COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: AKIL KURESHI, MANISH R.BHATT, R.K.PATEL

D. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THE Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench b has referred the following question under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction u/s. 32 (1) (iv) of the Act?"

( 2 ) THE assessee is a firm of Chartered Accountants having its offices at Ahmedabad, Petlad and Nadiad. The assessment year is 1984-85 and the relevant accounting period is financial year ending on 31/3/1984. The assessee made a claim in respect of initial depreciation under section 32 (1) (iv) of the Act on the cost of building erected during the year at Petlad. The said claim was negatived by the Income Tax Officer as according to him the said provision was meant to apply only in case of assessees who carried on business and not in the case of assessees who are involved in profession. The assessee challenged the assessment order and the C. I. T. (Appeals) relying upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Barendra Prasad Ray and others Vs. Income Tax Officer, 129 I. T. R. 295 accepted the claim of the a






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top