COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAHYOG INVESTMENT PVT.LTD.

ITR/175/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022498199522 December 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) has referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad concerning Assessment Year 1986-87, corresponding to the accounting period ending June 30, 1985. The appeal arises from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The dispute pertains to an addition of Rs. 1,66,084 made by the Assessing Officer on account of interest calculated on an accrual basis. The ITAT had deleted this addition. Both the Revenue and the assessee, Sahyog Investment Pvt. Ltd., were represented by their respective counsel. The parties jointly requested the court to hear the matter, noting it was covered by a previous judgment of the same court in the assessee's own case.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court noted that the controversy in the present case was concluded by its own decision rendered in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1985-86 in Income Tax Reference No. 112 of 1994, decided on September 29, 2005. This earlier decision had followed the Court's judgment in Income Tax Reference No. 110 of 1990, decided on July 10, 2002. The reasoning for answering the question in favour of the assessee was based on the principles laid down in these prior judgments. The operative direction was to answer the reference in favour of the assessee, disposing of the reference accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is right in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,66,084/- made on account of interest on accrual basis? (Question of law and fact, concerning the treatment of interest income). Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the fact that the ITAT deleted the addition and the High Court ultimately answered the question in favour of the assessee implies the assessee argued against the addition. The assessee's case was covered by prior High Court judgments. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, argued that the addition of Rs. 1,66,084/- on account of interest on accrual basis was justified. The Revenue's appeal to the High Court indicates disagreement with the ITAT's deletion of this addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/175/1995 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.175 of 1995 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================================= 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 SAHYOG INVESTMENT PVT.LTD. - Respondent(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, MR BD KARIA for MR RK PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 22/12/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DE

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 accountSign 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.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →