COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. C D R LAXMIDEVI

ITR/140/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020217199404 October 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in law in its conclusions. The court relied on its own prior decision in Income Tax Reference No. 43 of 1987, which dealt with the same assessee and identical issues for earlier assessment years. The reasoning was that for the purpose of computing the disallowable portion of travelling expenses under Section 37(3) of the Act read with Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the phrase 'an employee or any other person' does not encompass the assessee herself. Therefore, the Tribunal's findings were upheld. The questions referred were answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', referred two questions of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot. The assessment year in question is 1984-85, corresponding to the accounting period ending March 31, 1984. The respondent-assessee, C.D.R. Laxmidevi, did not appear despite being served. The revenue's counsel drew the court's attention to a previous decision of the same High Court in Income Tax Reference No. 43 of 1987, involving the same assessee and identical questions for assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. This previous judgment was considered determinative of the present reference.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was asked to decide two questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that on a plain reading of the relevant provisions, in the context in which it has been used, the expression 'an employee or any other person' occurring in Section 37(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not include the assessee herself? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 were not applicable in relation to travelling expenses incurred by the assessee? The revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of Section 37(3) and Rule 6D. The assessee's contentions are not recorded as there was no appearance on their behalf. The Tribunal's decision, which the revenue is challenging, held that the assessee herself is not covered by the phrase 'an employee or any other person' in Section 37(3) and that Rule 6D was not applicable to the assessee's travelling expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(3), Rule 6D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/140/1994 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 140 of 1994 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 C D R LAXMIDEVI - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR JIGAR SHAH FOR MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, =================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 04/10/2005

ITR/140/1994 2/4 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI) 1 The Income

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →