INDUSTRIAL DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITR/103/1990HC GujaratGJHC24013289199008 May 2003Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat noted that the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee does not press for the Reference. Consequently, the question referred to the Court remains unanswered as it was not pressed by the assessee. The Reference was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. The Tribunal's decision and the CIT's direction were not adjudicated upon by the High Court due to the assessee not pressing the reference. No finding was reached on the merits of whether the interest should be excluded from the loss.

What were the facts?

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B", referred a question of law at the instance of the assessee for the opinion of the High Court of Gujarat. The reference pertains to the Assessment Year 1981-82. The question concerns whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT) directing the Income-tax Officer (ITO) to exclude a sum of Rs. 1,94,285/- from the determined loss, which represented interest relatable to earlier years. The assessee is the Industrial Development Corporation, and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income-tax.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT directing the ITO to exclude the sum of Rs. 1,94,285/- being the interest relatable to the earlier years from the figure of loss determined? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The assessee, through its learned counsel, stated that it does not press for the Reference. Therefore, no arguments were presented by the assessee on the merits of the question. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments presented by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 103 of 1990

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES 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?

-------------------------------------------------------------- INDUSTRIAL DEVLOPMENT CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 103 of 1990 MR BD KARIA, Advocate for MR RK PATEL for Petitioner MS. MAUNA BHATT, Advocate for MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent --------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA

Date of decision: 08/05/2003

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI) #. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "B", has referred the following question at the instance of the assessee for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of the Assessment Year 1981-82. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the C.I.T. directing the ITO to exclude the sum of Rs. 1,94,285/- being the interest relatable to the earlier years from the figure of loss determined?"

#. When this Reference is called out, the learned counsel for the assessee states that the assessee does not press for the Reference. The question referred to us, therefore, remains unanswered as it is not pressed by the assessee. The Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

[R.K. ABICHANDANI, J.]

[K.M. MEHTA, J.] pirzada/-

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 755 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →