COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. N A DAVE

ITR/91/1993HC GujaratGJHC24021194199316 October 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court declined to answer the question referred to it by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court cited its own previous decision in Natvarlal Ambalal Dave vs. CIT, 225 ITR 936, as laying down the principles to be applied. For the same reasons as in the prior decision, the High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh. The Tribunal is to consider the principles enunciated in the Natvarlal Ambalal Dave case and also take into account any facts that may be brought on record by both the assessee and the revenue. The operative direction is a remand to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. No issue was expressly left undecided by the High Court, as it chose not to decide the referred question.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference No. 91 of 1993 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The reference was made at the instance of the revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax) against the assessee, Dr. N.A. Dave. The core issue revolves around the assessee's entitlement to investment allowance on an X-Ray machine installed by him. The High Court heard arguments from both the revenue and the assessee. The procedural history indicates that a previous decision by the same High Court in the case of Natvarlal Ambalal Dave vs. CIT (225 ITR 936) laid down principles applicable to this matter. The High Court, in its discretion, declined to answer the referred question directly.

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 was entitled to investment allowance on an X-Ray machine installed by him? (Question of law, turning on the interpretation of relevant provisions concerning investment allowance). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee. However, the fact that the assessee is claiming investment allowance implies a contention that the X-ray machine qualifies for such allowance under the Income Tax Act. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, by referring the question to the High Court, implicitly contends that the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was incorrect. The judgment does not detail the specific grounds of the revenue's challenge.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

))

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 91 of 1993

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 260

All 82 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →