COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. N C MEHTA

ITR/3/1987HC GujaratGJHC24011736198703 September 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, meaning in favor of the assessee and against the revenue. The reasoning provided is that a prior, identical reference (Income Tax Reference No. 98 of 1986) between the same parties on the same issue had already been decided in favor of the assessee on July 4, 2001. The High Court, by answering the current reference in the affirmative, aligns with the previous decision. The ratio decidendi is that when a High Court has already ruled on a specific tax issue between the same parties, subsequent references on the identical issue will follow the precedent. The operative direction is that the reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the revenue at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax against the assessee, N.C. Mehta, concerning the assessment year 1982-83. The reference pertains to a question of law decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The revenue's counsel acknowledged that a similar reference between the same parties on the identical issue had previously been decided by the High Court on July 4, 2001, in Income Tax Reference No. 98 of 1986, in favor of the assessee. The High Court was therefore asked to provide its opinion on the referred question.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in concluding that for the purpose of determining disallowance under Section 37(3) read with Rule 6D, the restrictions were applicable in respect of expenditure incurred on salary by an employee or other persons, and such restriction was not applicable to expenditure incurred for traveling by the proprietor himself? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, conceded that a prior reference on the same issue between the same parties had been decided in favor of the assessee. This implies the revenue did not press its argument against the Tribunal's decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(3), Rule 6D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 3 of 1987

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

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

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

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?

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO ---------------------------------------

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 account Sign 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 →