COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ELLISBRIDGE GYMKHANA

PDF · subscribers
ITR/217/1986HC GujaratGJHC24010841198604 July 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reasoning provided is based on the precedent set by this court in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd. v. CIT, 171 ITR 504. In that case, a similar question of law was decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following the law laid down in the cited case, the court held that the other income of the assessee was indeed exempt under Section 10(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. The operative direction is to answer the reference in the affirmative.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) at the instance of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A'. The reference concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the judgment. The order under challenge is the Tribunal's decision that the other income of the assessee, Ellisbridge Gymkhana, was exempt under Section 10(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revenue is represented by Mr. B.B. Naik, while the assessee, though duly served, did not appear. The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad is hearing the reference.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the other income of the assessee was exempt u/s 10(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (a question of law). Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record any contentions for the assessee as they did not appear. Revenue: Learned advocate Shri B.B. Naik fairly submitted that the question referred to the court has been answered in the case of Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd. v. CIT, 171 ITR 504. He submitted that a similar question of law arose in that case, and this court had answered it in the affirmative, meaning against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(23),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 217 of 1986

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE 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 @ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus ELLISBRIDGE GYMKHANA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BB NAIK for MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA

Date of decision: 04/07/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE)

At the instance of the revenue, the following

question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of sec.256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A'.

"Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the other income of the assessee was exempt u/s 10(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

2.

Learned advocate Shri B.B. Naik has appeared for the applicant whereas nobody has appeared for the respondent-assessee though the respondent has been duly served.

3.

At the time of hearing of this reference, learned advocate Shri Naik has fairly submitted that the question, which has been referred to this court, has been answered in case of Sports Club of Gujarat Ltd. v. CIT, 171 ITR 504. It has been submitted by him that a similar question of law had arisen in case of Sports Club of Gujarat (supra) and this court had answered the question in the said case in the affirmative, i.e. against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

4.

Looking to the law laid down by this court in case of Sports Club of Gujarat (supra), we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e. against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.

The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

(A.R. Dave, J.) (D.A. Mehta, J.) (hn)

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 →