VINITABEN ARVINDBHAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

ITR/131/1988HC GujaratGJHC24013207198804 October 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 held that the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in allowing the deduction under Section 80T of the Income-tax Act only after setting off the capital loss suffered on the sale of other assets, and not with reference to the gross amount of capital gain earned by the assessee. The Court's reasoning was based on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of H.H. Sir Rama Varma vs. CIT, 205 ITR 433 (SC), which stated that relief under Section 80T can only be granted after offsetting capital losses. The question referred to the Court was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, Vinitaben Arvindbhai, challenged the Tribunal's decision regarding the allowance of deduction under Section 80T. The core of the dispute was whether the deduction should be calculated on the gross capital gain or after setting off capital losses from other assets. The High Court heard arguments from both the assessee and the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction u/s. 80T of the Income-tax Act should be allowed only after setting off the capital loss suffered on the sale of other assets, and not with reference to the gross amount of capital gain earned by the appellant? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the deduction under Section 80T should be allowed with reference to the gross amount of capital gain earned. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the deduction under Section 80T should be allowed only after setting off capital losses suffered on the sale of other assets. The revenue relied on the Supreme Court decision in H.H. Sir Rama Varma vs. CIT, 205 ITR 433 (SC).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 80T

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

)) IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 131 of 1988

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 256(1)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →