COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHREE SARVODAYA INDUSTRIES

ITR/65/1998HC GujaratGJHC24024423199817 September 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court addressed the two questions referred. For the first question, concerning whether relief under sections 80HH and 80J should be allowed separately for assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86, the Court held in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. This decision followed a previous ruling by the same Court in Income Tax Reference No.128 of 1985 dated 14/06/2001. For the second question, regarding whether relief under section 80HH should be allowed on the gross total income before deducting investment allowance for assessment year 1983-84, the Court held in the negative, in favour of the revenue. This was based on the ratio of the Court's decision in CIT vs. Amul Transmission Line Hardware Pvt.Ltd. 104 ITR 771, which stated that relief under section 80I is allowed after setting off unabsorbed losses, depreciation, and development rebate. Applying this principle, the Court concluded that relief under section 80HH must be allowed after deducting investment allowance from the gross total income. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the facts?

The Gujarat High Court was considering an Income Tax Reference concerning assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86. The Commissioner of Income Tax was the applicant, and Shree Sarvodaya Industries was the respondent assessee. The reference was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', on two questions of law. The revenue was represented by counsel, while the respondent assessee, though served, did not appear. The Court was asked to decide whether relief under sections 80HH and 80J should be allowed separately, and whether relief under section 80HH should be calculated on gross total income before deducting investment allowance.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law: 1. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) holding that the relief under sec.80HH and 80J should be separately allowed? (Relates to assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86) 2. Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A), holding that the relief under sec.80HH should be allowed on the gross total income before deducting investment allowance? (Relates to assessment year 1983-84) Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded as the respondent was not represented. Revenue: Appeared through counsel Mr. B.B. Nayak.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80HH,Section 80J,Section 80I

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 65 of 1998

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 80HH

All 102 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HH →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →