COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. C D R LAXMIDEVI

ITR/43/1987HC GujaratGJHC24011776198720 August 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA3 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its earlier decision in CIT vs. N.C. Mehta, held that the Tribunal was correct in law. The Court reasoned that for the purpose of computing the disallowable portion of travelling expenses under Section 37(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, the phrase 'an employee or any other person' does not encompass the assessee herself. Therefore, the Tribunal's conclusion that the assessee was not included within this phrase was upheld. The questions referred to the Court were answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', referred two questions of law for the opinion of the Gujarat High Court concerning assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81. The questions were common for both years. The revenue was represented by counsel, but the assessee, C.D.R. Laxmidevi, did not appear despite being served. The High Court noted that an identical issue had already been decided by it in CIT vs. N.C. Mehta (I.T.R.No.98/86) on July 4, 2001, making a detailed statement of facts unnecessary.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal referred the following two questions for the High Court's opinion: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that on a plain reading of the relevant provisions, in the context in which it has been used, the expression 'an employee or any other person' occurring in Section 37(3) does not include the assessee herself? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that Rule 6D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 were not applicable in relation to the travelling expenses incurred by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded as the assessee did not appear. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded as the judgment relies on a previous decision of the same court.

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 43 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 →