COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAHYOG INVESTMENTS P LTD

ITR/112/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020190199429 September 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against Sahyog Investments P Ltd (Assessee) for the assessment year 1985-86. The reference was made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core issue concerns the includibility of interest on redeemable bonds and convertible debentures attributable to the period under consideration in the assessee's total income. Both parties jointly requested the Court to hear the matter, acknowledging that one of the judges had previously appeared for the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court agreed to proceed due to the case being covered by a prior judgment of the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The Gujarat High Court held that the appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest on redeemable bonds and convertible debentures attributable to the period under consideration was not includible in the total income of the assessee for assessment year 1985-86. This decision was based on the established law laid down by the High Court in a previous judgment rendered in I.T.R. No.110 of 1990 on July 10, 2002. The Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The ratio decidendi is that interest on redeemable bonds and convertible debentures, under the circumstances decided in the prior judgment, is not includible in the total income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the interest on redeemable bonds and convertible debentures attributable to the period under consideration was not includible in the total income of the assessee for assessment year 1985-86? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the computation of total income). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the Revenue. However, the reference itself indicates the Revenue's disagreement with the Tribunal's decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/112/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No.112 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 SAHYOG INVESTMENTS P LTD - Respondent(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, MR RK PATEL for Respondent(s) : 1, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 29/09/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)

1.

The following question has bee

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 →