MANEKLAL HARILAL SPG & MFG CO LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITR/121/1985HC GujaratGJHC24012253198503 August 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference No. 121 of 1985 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The applicant is Maneklal Harilal Spg & Mfg Co Ltd, and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income-Tax. The reference was made at the instance of the applicant, presenting two questions for the Court's opinion under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court noted that during the pendency of the reference, both questions had been answered by various courts. The judgment was delivered orally by Mr. Justice A.R. Dave and Mr. Justice D.A. Mehta on August 3, 2001.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court addressed each of the referred questions based on existing judicial precedents. For the first question, concerning whether bank guarantee commission is capital expenditure, the Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in I.T.R. vs. Sivakami Mills Ltd, 227 I.T.R. 465. Applying the law laid down in that case, the Court answered the question in the negative, favoring the assessee and against the revenue. For the second question, regarding commission paid to Managing Directors being treated as remuneration for the purpose of Section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Court referred to its own judgment in C.I.T. vs. Rohit Mills Ltd. Based on the law established in that judgment, the Court answered this question in the affirmative, meaning it was against the assessee and in favor of the revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

The High Court was asked to decide two questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that payment of bank guarantee commission was expenditure of capital nature? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that commission paid to Managing Directors was remuneration and requires to be added for the provisions of section 40(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961? The applicant (assessee) was represented by Mr. H.M. Talati, and the respondent (revenue) was represented by Mr. B.B. Nayak. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by each side, but rather refers to prior judicial pronouncements that answered these questions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 40(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 121 of 1985

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ============================================================ 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 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 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 →