COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. CHALTHAN VIBHAG UDYOG KHAND SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.

ITR/165/1994HC GujaratGJHC24020241199407 November 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its own previous decision in a reference concerning the same assessee and an identical question, answered the referred question in the negative. This means the High Court held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by the earlier judgment of the same court. The ratio decidendi is that if a prior decision of the High Court has already ruled on an identical issue for the same assessee, that decision will be followed. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This is an Income Tax Reference at the instance of the revenue concerning assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had referred a question for the opinion of the High Court. The revenue was represented by Mr. Mihir H. Joshi, learned counsel. The respondent-assessee, though served, did not appear. The High Court noted a previous decision of the same court in a reference involving the very same assessee, where an identical question was raised and answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) and u/s.80P(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any contentions made by the assessee. The assessee did not appear before the High Court. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, invited the attention of the High Court to a previous decision of the same court in a reference involving the same assessee and an identical question. This previous decision had answered the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P(2)(a)(i),Section 80P(2)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 165 of 1994

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH 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 80P(2)(a)(i)

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P(2)(a)(i) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →