COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.C. SHAH

PDF · subscribers
ITR/165/1986HC GujaratGJHC24010789198603 July 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, in its oral judgment, held that the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction as contemplated under Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court reached this decision by relying on a previous judgment of the same court in the case of CIT v. Bhagwat Prasad P. Parikh, reported in 239 ITR 645. The reasoning was that the law laid down in the precedent case was applicable to the present reference. Therefore, the question posed by the revenue was answered in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the revenue at the instance of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad. The reference was made to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The dispute concerns the assessee's entitlement to a deduction under Section 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The procedural history involves a reference question being posed by the Tribunal to the High Court for its opinion.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following question of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction as contemplated u/s 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Contentions: Assessee: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee's counsel. However, the outcome indicates the assessee's claim was upheld. Revenue: The revenue, represented by learned advocate Shri B.B. Naik, sought to challenge the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80U. The revenue's contention is implicitly that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction. The revenue relied on the fact that the issue had been decided in the case of CIT v. Bhagwat Prasad P. Parikh, 239 ITR 645.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 80U

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 165 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 M.C. SHAH -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR BB NAIK for MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 MR MEHUL PATEL for MR KC PATEL for Respondent No. 1

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

Date of decision: 03/07/2001

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

At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench 'A' under the provisions of sec. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction as contemplated u/s 80U of the Income-tax Act, 1961?"

2.

Learned advocate Shri B.B. Naik has appeared for the applicant-revenue and learned advocate Shri Mehul Patel has appeared for the respondent-assessee.

3.

It has been submitted by the learned advocates that the issue involved in the present reference has already been decided in the case of CIT v. Bhagwat Prasad P. Parikh, 239 ITR 645. In view of the law laid down by this court in Bhagwat Prasad P. Parikh (supra), we answer the question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

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 →