COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MANAVADAR PATEL SAMAJ

ITR/109/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020187199428 September 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'C', referred a question to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue. The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The revenue challenged the ITAT's decision that the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act were not applicable to the assessee trust, and therefore, the trust was entitled to the exemption claimed. The learned standing counsel for the revenue appeared, but the respondent assessee, though served, did not appear.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, applying the ratio of its own decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Leuva Patel Kelwani Mandal (Income Tax Reference No. 115 of 1987), which dealt with an identical issue, answered the referred question in the affirmative. This means the High Court held that the Tribunal was correct in its finding that the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not applicable to the assessee trust and that the trust was entitled to the exemption as claimed. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Court in the Leuva Patel Kelwani Mandal case. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not applicable and the assessee trust was entitled to exemption as claimed? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in holding that Section 13(1)(b) was not applicable to the assessee trust and that the trust was entitled to the exemption claimed. The revenue sought to challenge this finding before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 13(1)(b),Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/109/1994 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 109 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 MANAVADAR PATEL SAMAJ - Respondent(s) ============================================================== Appearance : 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 : 28/09/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1.The Income Ta

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 13(1)(b)

All 207 judgments and leading authorities on Section 13(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →