COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MAHENDRA D PARMAR

PDF · subscribers

ITR/131/1993HC GujaratGJHC24021213199316 October 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in law in its decision. The reasoning was based on a prior decision of the same High Court in the case of Sunil J.Kinariwala vs. CIT, 211 ITR 127. Following this precedent, the court affirmed that only 50% of the 8% share from the firm M/s.Kinariwala RJK Industries was to be included in the assessee's total income. The ratio decidendi is that where a High Court has already ruled on a specific issue concerning the inclusion of firm profits, subsequent references on identical facts and law should follow that precedent. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad at the instance of the revenue. The assessee is Mahendra D Parmar. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The order under challenge is the ITAT's decision regarding the inclusion of a share from a firm in the assessee's total income. The procedural history involves a reference application filed by the revenue, which has been pending for eight years. The High Court heard the counsel for the revenue, and the notice to the respondent (assessee) was unserved. However, the court decided to dispose of the reference in favour of 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 only 50% of 8% of the share from the firm of M/s.Kinariwala RJK Industries is to be included in the assessee's total income? (Question of law, concerning the computation of total income). Contentions: Assessee: No arguments recorded as the notice was unserved, but the High Court decided in their favour. Revenue: The learned Counsel for the revenue fairly pointed out that the question referred is concluded by the decision of the High Court in the case of Sunil J.Kinariwala vs. CIT, 211 ITR 127.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, other than general reference to income tax law.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

))

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 131 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?

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

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?

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus MAHENDRA D PARMAR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 131 of 1993 MR MIHIR H.JOSHI FOR MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant. NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondent No. 1

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

Date of decision: 16/10/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred

the following question for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the revenue :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that only 50% of 8% of share from the firm of M/s.Kinariwala RJK Industries is to be included in the assessee's total income ?"

2 We have heard Mr.M.H.Joshi, learned Counsel for Tribunal was right in law in holding that only 50% of 8% share from the firm was to be included in the assessee's total income. The question referred to us is therefore answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

5 The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (M.S.Shah, J) (D.A.Mehta,J) m.m.bhatt

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →