OHM ORGANISERS vs. DY.C.I.T.

TAXAP/214/2004HC GujaratGJHC24025758200412 August 2014Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.J.THAKER8 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The assessee, M/s. Ohm Organizers and M/s. Ohm Developers, filed appeals against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for block assessment years 1990-91 to 1999-2000. The revenue also filed an appeal. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 2,97,15,401/-. The CIT(A) reduced this to Rs. 2,18,34,648/-. The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal (IT(SS)A No. 320/Ahd/2002) confirming the CIT(A)'s order, which is challenged in Tax Appeal No. 215/2004. The ITAT also dismissed the revenue's appeal (IT(SS)A No. 314/Ahd/2002) on a procedural ground, which is challenged in Tax Appeal No. 692/2009. Tax Appeal No. 214/2004 raises similar issues as Tax Appeal No. 215/2004.

Held

The High Court, noting a broad consensus between the parties, decided to quash and set aside the impugned judgments and orders of the ITAT. The matters were remanded to the ITAT to decide all three appeals (Tax Appeal Nos. 214/2004, 215/2004, and 692/2009) together afresh on their merits. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case or the substantial questions of law raised. The ITAT was directed to complete this exercise within six months. The revenue's appeal (Tax Appeal No. 692/2009) was particularly noted as having not been decided on merits by the ITAT, necessitating a remand.

Key Issues

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in applying the definition of transfer in Section 2(47) to stock in trade? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in applying the definition of transfer in Section 269UA(f) to the case of the assessee? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the Tribunal erred in applying the definition of transfer under Section 2(47) and Section 269UA(f) to stock in trade. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the ITAT's orders were contrary to evidence, perverse, and based on conjectures and surmises. Specifically, in Tax Appeal No. 692/2009, the revenue argued that the ITAT was wrong in dismissing its appeal without deciding on merits, especially since the assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order had already been disposed of.

Sections Cited

2(47), 269UA(f), 158BC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O/TAXAP/214/2004 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 214 of 2004 With TAX APPEAL NO. 215 of 2004 With TAX APPEAL NO. 692 of 2009

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

====================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ====================================== OHM ORGANISERS....Appellant(s) Versus DY.C.I.T.....Opponent(s) ====================================== Appearance: MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ====================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

O/TAX

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →