COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAMIR J. THAKORE

PDF · subscribers
WTR/38/1991HC GujaratGJHC24013707199113 December 2004Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, per Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.A. Mehta and Hon'ble Ms. Justice H.N. Devani, held that the question referred to it stands concluded by the Court's own decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.S.Krishnavati Vahuji Maharaj Kalyanraiji Temple, (2003) 264 ITR 517. Consequently, the question is answered in the affirmative, meaning the Tribunal's finding that the land at Nehru Park, Bodakdev should be valued at Rs.10 per sq.mtr. is upheld. This decision is in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The ratio of the judgment is that if a specific valuation issue has been decided by the High Court in a prior case, that decision binds subsequent references on the same issue. The reference is disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

This matter comes before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad as a Wealth Tax Reference No. 38 of 1991, initiated by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', had referred a question of law for the Court's opinion. The assessee is Samir J. Thakore. The dispute concerns the valuation of land at Nehru Park, Bodakdev. The procedural history involves the Tribunal referring a specific question to the High Court at the instance of the revenue. The parties agreed that the issue was concluded by a prior decision of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the land at Nehru Park, Bodakdev should be valued at Rs.10 per sq.mtr.? Assessee's contention: The assessee relies on the decision of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. G.S.Krishnavati Vahuji Maharaj Kalyanraiji Temple, (2003) 264 ITR 517, which is stated to have concluded the issue. Revenue's contention: The revenue, represented by Mr. M.R. Bhatt, conceded that the question stands concluded by the aforementioned High Court decision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 27(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 38 of 1991

For Approval and Signature:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI

============================================================ 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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?

-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus SAMIR J. THAKORE -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No. 38 of 1991 MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH for Respondent No. 1

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

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI

Date of decision: 14/12/2004

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)

1 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' Ahmedabad has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act,1957 (the Act) at the instance of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax.

"

1.

Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the land at Nehru Park, Bodakdev should be valued at Rs.10 per sq.mtr.?"

2 Heard Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant-revenue and Mr.Manish J.Shah, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee. It is common ground between the m.m.bhatt

More judgments on Section 27(1)

All 322 judgments and leading authorities on Section 27(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →