GHANSHYAM A PANDIT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers

ITR/113/1986HC GujaratGJHC24010737198612 July 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission made by the assessee's advocate that the dispute had been settled under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Yojna, 1998. Due to this settlement, the legal heirs of the assessee indicated their lack of desire to pursue the reference. Consequently, the Court decided to return the reference unanswered. No decision was made on the merits of any underlying tax dispute. The Court also ordered no costs.

What were the facts?

This is an Income Tax Reference No. 113 of 1986 before the High Court of Gujarat. The applicant is Ghanshyam A. Pandit, and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax. The reference was heard by a division bench comprising Mr. Justice A.R. Dave and Mr. Justice D.A. Mehta. The specific assessment year(s) and the original order or action under challenge are not detailed in this judgment. The procedural history leading to this reference is also not elaborated upon.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal did not have to decide any substantive questions of law or fact. The primary issue that arose was whether the reference should be proceeded with. The assessee's advocate, Shri J.P. Shah, appearing with Shri K.G. Pandit, submitted that the dispute had been settled by the assessee availing the benefit under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Yojna, 1998. Consequently, the legal heirs of the assessee did not wish to press the reference. The revenue's contentions are not recorded, but their advocate, Shri Bharat Naik, was present.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 113 of 1986

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?

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 ------------------------------------------------------------- GHANSHYAM A PANDIT Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 113 of 1986 MR KG PANDIT for Petitioner No. 1 MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

Date of decision: 12/07/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT

(Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE)

Learned advocate Shri Bharat Naik has appeared for the revenue and learned advocate Shri K.G. Pandit has appeared for the applicant.

Learned advocate Shri J.P. Shah appearing with learned advocate Shri K.G. Pandit has submitted at the time of hearing of this reference that the assessee had settled the dispute by availing benefit under Kar Vivad Samadhan Yojna, 1998. In the circumstances, legal heirs of the assessee do not desire to press this reference.

The reference is returned unanswered with no order as to costs.

12.7.

2001. (A.R. Dave, J.)

(D.A. Mehta, J.)

/phalguni/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →