COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CAMA HOTEL LTD.

ITR/26/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022351199505 December 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This case concerns Income Tax Reference No. 26 of 1995 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The applicant is the Commissioner of Income Tax, and the respondent is Cama Hotels Ltd. The assessment year in question is 1985-86. The reference arises from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', which had decided two questions of law at the instance of the Revenue. The High Court was asked to decide whether the Tribunal was right in its findings on these two questions. It was common ground between the parties that both issues were concluded by Supreme Court decisions.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the two questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Regarding the first question, concerning whether a swimming pool and its filtration plant should be treated as 'plant' for depreciation allowance, the Court held in the negative, in favour of the Revenue. This decision was based on the concession made by the assessee's counsel, acknowledging that the issue stood concluded against the assessee by the Supreme Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Anand Theatres, [2000] 244 ITR 192 (SC). Consequently, the Tribunal's direction was set aside. For the second question, concerning the applicability of Section 43B to unpaid sales tax liability paid within the time for filing a return under Section 139(1), the Court answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. This was based on the Revenue's concession that the issue was concluded against the Revenue by the Supreme Court's decision in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, [1997] 224 ITR 677 (SC). The Reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the swimming pool and the connected filtration plant as plant for the purpose of granting depreciation allowance, under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in holding that if the unpaid sales tax liability pertaining to the last quarter is paid within the time stipulated for filing of return under Section 139(1), the provisions of Section 43B cannot be made applicable. Contentions: Assessee: The assessee's position on question 1 was conceded to be against them in light of the Supreme Court decision in CIT v. Anand Theatres. For question 2, the Revenue accepted that the issue was answered against them by the Supreme Court decision in Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT. Revenue: The Revenue's position on question 1 was that the swimming pool and filtration plant should not be treated as plant for depreciation. For question 2, the Revenue's contention was that Section 43B should be applicable to the unpaid sales tax liability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32,Section 43B,Section 139(1),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/26/1995 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.26 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 CAMA HOTELS LTD. - Respondent(s) ======================================================= Appearance : MRS MM BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, MR MJ SHAH for MR JP SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, ======================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 05/12/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)

1.

The Income-tax Ap

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 32

All 2,691 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →