COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ARVIND MILLS LTD.

ITR/134/1987HC GujaratGJHC24011867198711 September 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT S. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns an Income Tax Reference filed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax against Arvind Mills Ltd. for the assessment year 1983-84. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', referred five questions of law for the opinion of the High Court. The High Court, in its oral judgment, stated that all five questions had already been answered by them in a previous, related Income Tax Reference (No. 286 of 1987). The judgment then proceeds to state how each of the five referred questions was answered, indicating the parties in whose favour the decision lay for each question. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, by referring to its decision in Income Tax Reference No. 286 of 1987, answered the five referred questions. For question 1, it was answered partly against the assessee and partly against the revenue. Question 2 was answered in the negative, favoring the assessee and against the revenue. Question 3 was answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee and against the revenue. Question 4 was answered in the negative, favoring the revenue and against the assessee. Question 5 was answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee and against the revenue. The judgment does not elaborate on the reasoning for each answer but indicates the outcome for each specific issue and the party that prevailed. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal referred five questions for the opinion of the High Court: 1. Whether reimbursement of medical expenses and house rent allowance to Managing Directors is to be considered for computing disallowance under Section 40(c) of the Income Tax Act? 2. Whether cash payment of house rent allowance to employees is to be considered for computing disallowance under Section 40A(5) of the Act? 3. Whether, in law and on facts, the assessee is entitled to a deduction of Rs. 2,50,888/- paid to M/s. Mettur Beardsell Ltd. on account of royalty? 4. Whether disallowance under Rule 6-D is to be computed by grouping together all tours undertaken by a person during the year? 5. Whether, in law and on facts, the assessee was entitled to the deduction under Section 80HHC of the Act? The assessee contended in favour of deductions and allowances, while the revenue contended for disallowances. Specific arguments and reliance on authorities were not detailed in this judgment as it refers to a prior decision for the reasoning.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(c),Section 40A(5),Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 134 of 1987

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 40(c)

All 46 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →