COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAVITABEN N AMIN

ITR/45/1986HC GujaratGJHC24010669198610 July 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 filed by the Revenue at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax against the assessee, Savitaben N. Amin. The reference pertains to two questions of law arising from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Revenue was represented by Mr. B.B. Nayak, while no one appeared for the assessee despite being served. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad was hearing the reference. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue had appealed to the Tribunal against an order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), and the Tribunal had passed an order which led to this reference.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to answer the first question, stating that it did not arise. The Court noted that the Tribunal had given directions to the Assessing Officer to recalculate the standard deduction, and the matter had been remanded to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, no substantial question of law arose on this point. Regarding the second question, the Court referred to its own prior judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Savitaben N. Amin (Income Tax Reference No. 158 of 1982, decided on 25/1/1994). The Court found that the law laid down in that previous judgment squarely answered the second question. Accordingly, the Court answered the second question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two questions of law referred by the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances, when the assessee is provided with a car by one of the employers, the standard deduction is not to be restricted to Rs. 1,000/-? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the amount expended by employer Bharat Linders Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing the deferred life annuity policy for the assessee was not liable to tax under Section 17(2)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Contentions: Assessee: No arguments were recorded for the assessee as no one appeared. Revenue: Argued for both questions. For the first question, the Revenue likely contended that the standard deduction should be restricted. For the second question, the Revenue likely contended that the deferred life annuity policy payment was taxable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 17(2)(v)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 45 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?

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 →