ROHIT MILLS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITR/7/1993HC GujaratGJHC24021142199309 February 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rohit Mills Ltd., is a limited company engaged in manufacturing textile and engineering goods. For Assessment Year 1976-77, relevant to the accounting period of calendar year 1975, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 20,69,411/- towards gratuity provision pertaining to accounting periods relevant to Assessment Years 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1975-76. The Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) disallowed this claim, stating that the amount had already been allowed in earlier years based on provisions made then and could not be claimed again on the basis of actual payment. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed this disallowance. This reference to the High Court was made at the instance of the assessee because the revenue had challenged the Tribunal's orders for the earlier assessment years (1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76) before the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the reference was filed because the revenue had challenged the Tribunal's orders for earlier assessment years (1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76) before the High Court. The Court was informed that for Assessment Year 1975-76, this Court, in its own case (CIT Vs. The Rohit Mills Limited, Ahmedabad, ITR Ref. No. 216 of 1982, decided on 29/12/1993), had rejected the revenue's reference by answering the question in favour of the assessee. Consequently, for the component relatable to Assessment Year 1975-76, the assessee's reference in the current year could not succeed. However, regarding Assessment Years 1973-74 and 1974-75, neither party could inform the Court about the fate of the revenue's references. In the absence of details, the question was returned unanswered. The Tribunal was directed to adjust its decision in appeal after giving both sides an opportunity to present facts related to Assessment Years 1973-74 and 1974-75. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the applicant for deduction of Gratuity Payment of Rs.20,69,411/- for Assessment Year 1976-77? Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought a deduction for gratuity payment. The judgment does not explicitly detail the assessee's arguments beyond filing the reference. However, the context implies the assessee believed the deduction was admissible. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the gratuity amount had already been allowed as a deduction in earlier assessment years (1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76) based on provisions made in those years. Therefore, it could not be claimed again in the current assessment year (1976-77) on the basis of actual payment. The Assessing Officer and CIT (Appeals) disallowed the claim on this ground, and the Tribunal confirmed it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 7 of 1993

For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tr

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 →