COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. GURJAR SUTHAR PRAGATI MANDAL

ITR/396/1992HC GujaratGJHC24015736199210 January 2005Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT), Baroda, referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 1986-87. The reference was made under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance of the revenue. The assessee is Gurjar Suthar Pragati Mandal. The dispute concerns the applicability of Section 13(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act and the assessee's entitlement to exemption under Section 11 of the Act. The High Court was asked to decide whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that Section 13(1)(b) was not applicable and the assessee trust was entitled to exemption under Section 11.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the revenue had fairly conceded that the question referred had been answered by this Court in its previous decisions in the cases of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Leuva Patel Kelavani Mandal and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Leuva Patel Nutan Kelavani Mandal. Therefore, in view of these prior judgments, the Court found the issue to be concluded. The ratio decidendi is that if a question of law referred to the High Court has already been decided by the same Court in similar cases, the High Court will follow its previous pronouncements. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

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 under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as claimed? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through its learned Standing Counsel, conceded that the question referred to the Court had already been answered by this Court in previous unreported decisions. The revenue relied on the decisions in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Leuva Patel Kelavani Mandal (decided on 12/09/2001 in ITR No.115 of 1987) and Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Leuva Patel Nutan Kelavani Mandal (decided on 29/8/2002 in ITR No.109 of 1988).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 13(1)(b),Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 396 of 1992

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

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 →