PRAFULBHAI M. PATEL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITR/5/1988HC GujaratGJHC24013083198828 June 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The court's decision was based on the fact that an identical question of law had been referred to the same court at the instance of the assessee in I.T.R. No. 3 of 1988. In that previous reference, the High Court had answered the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Therefore, following the precedent set by its own earlier decision, the High Court disposed of the present reference by answering the question in the same manner. The operative direction is that the reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Prafulbhai M. Patel, filed an appeal against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'C'. The case involves a reference made to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The specific issue pertains to the assessee's claim for interest amounting to Rs. 26,097. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT referred a question of law to the High Court at the instance of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to claim interest of Rs. 26,097 under Section 37, 80V, 57, or Section 67 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The assessee, through its learned Advocate Mr. R.K. Patel, sought to claim interest of Rs. 26,097 under the specified sections of the Income-tax Act. The specific arguments supporting this claim are not detailed in the judgment. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, represented by learned Advocate Mr. B.B. Nayak, contested the assessee's claim for interest. The judgment notes that the Revenue's position was upheld in a similar prior reference.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 37,Section 80V,Section 57,Section 67

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 5 of 1988

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 @ PRAFULBHAI M. PATEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR R.K PATEL WITH MR.B.D.KARIA for Applicant. MR B.D.KARIA FOR MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------

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

Date of decision: 28/06/2001

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE) 1 At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion

by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench "C" under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

"

1.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to claim interest of Rs.26,097/- u/s.37, 80V, 57 or Sec.67 of the I.T.Act,1961?"

2.

We have heard learned Advocate Mr.R.K.Patel for the applicant-assessee and learned Advocate Mr.B.B.Nayak, for the Revenue.

3.

Learned Advocates have fairly submitted that a similar question of law was referred to this Court at the instance of the assessee in I.T.R.No.3 of 1988 and this Court had answered the question referred to in I.T.R.No.3 of 1988 in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

4.

In view of the fact that an identical question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, we also answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

5.

The Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.R.Dave, J) (D.A.Mehta,J)

m.m.bhatt

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 →