KIRANBHAI R. PATEL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITR/4/1988HC GujaratGJHC24013082198828 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, while hearing the Income Tax Reference No. 4 of 1988, decided the referred question in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Court's decision was based on the submission by both learned advocates that a similar question of law had been referred to the same Court in I.T.R. No. 3 of 1988. In that prior reference, the High Court had answered the question in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Consequently, applying the same reasoning and precedent, the Court in the present case also answered the identical question referred to it in favour of the Revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference No. 4 of 1988 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The assessee, Kiranbhai R. Patel, sought a reference on a question of law to the High Court from an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C'. The reference was made under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The dispute pertains to the assessee's claim for interest amounting to Rs. 52,374. The procedural history indicates that the High Court heard arguments from both the assessee and the Revenue.

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. 52,374/- under Sections 37, 80V, 57, or 67 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee claimed entitlement to the interest of Rs. 52,374/- under the specified sections of the Income-tax Act. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contested the assessee's claim for the interest. The judgment notes that learned advocates for both the applicant-assessee and the Revenue appeared. The core of the dispute revolves around the allowability of the claimed interest amount under the aforementioned sections of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 4 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 @ KIRANBHAI R. PATEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR RK PATEL WITH MR.B.D.KARIA for Applicant No. 1 MR B.B.NAYAK 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.52,374/- 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 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →