IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 58 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus CHEMICOAT LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 58 of 1992 MR AKIL KURESHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 06/11/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) In this reference at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for our opinion in respect of assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84 :- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the expenses of Rs.5,30,101/- for A.Y. 1982-83 and Rs.4,19,722/- for A.Y. 1983-84 incurred by the assessee for setting up a new unit was allowable as a revenue expenditure ?" 2. We have heard Mr Akil Kureshi, learned counsel for the revenue. Though served, none appears for the respondent-assessee. 3. Our attention is invited to the decision dated 20.12.1999 of this Court in Income-tax Reference Nos. 260 and 333 of 1984 between the revenue and this very assessee on the same controversy for assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79. In the said decision, this Court held that the amount spent by the Company was to be treated as revenue expenditure. 4. Following the aforesaid decision, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (M.S. Shah, J.) (D.A. Mehta, J.) sundar/-