COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. APEX ELECTRICALS PVT.LTD.

ITR/93/1997HC GujaratGJHC24020257199725 September 2006Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.GARG3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, for reasons stated in Income Tax Reference No. 239/95, which was decided on the same day, answered the referred question against the interest of the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Court did not provide a separate detailed reasoning for this specific reference but relied on the reasoning from the other decided reference. The operative direction was to dispose of the reference in favour of the assessee, implying the ITAT's decision to allow the lease rent claim was upheld. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Revenue) has referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, arising from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'C'. The reference pertains to Assessment Year 1987-88 and originates from Income-tax Appeal No. 4662/Ahd/1990. The dispute concerns the allowability of a lease rent claim of Rs. 75,000/- in the current year, which the Assessing Officer (AO) had treated as a capital expenditure. The ITAT directed the AO to allow this claim.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of lease rent of Rs.75,000/- in the current year, which according to the A.O. was a capital expenditure? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's direction to allow the claim implies the assessee argued for its deductibility as a revenue expenditure. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Commissioner of Income-tax, contended that the lease rent of Rs. 75,000/- constituted a capital expenditure and therefore should not be allowed as a deduction in the current year. The AO had taken this position.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256[1]

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/93/1997 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 93 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Applicant(s) Versus APEX ELECTRICALS PVT.LTD. - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant None for Opponent ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Date : 25/09/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG)

ITR/93/1997 2/3 JUDGMENT

The Income-tax Appellate Tribuna

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →