HARSHADKUMAR N DALAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITR/3/1988HC GujaratGJHC24013081198828 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 held that the assessee was not entitled to claim the interest of Rs. 1,68,083/-. The Court reached this decision by following its own prior judgment in I.T. Reference No. 141 of 1985, which dealt with a similar question of law concerning a partner of the applicant assessee. The High Court had answered that earlier reference in the affirmative, meaning against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The reasoning for this decision was based on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Padmavati Jaykrishna Vs. Addl. C.I.T. (166 I.T.R. 176) and East India Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (224 I.T.R. 627). The operative direction was to answer the reference in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference No. 3 of 1988 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, initiated at the instance of the assessee, Harshadkumar N Dalal. The Revenue is the respondent. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The order under challenge is a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', to the High Court. The dispute concerns the assessee's claim for interest amounting to Rs. 1,68,083/-. The procedural history indicates that a similar question was previously referred to the High Court in I.T. Reference No. 141 of 1985, concerning a partner of the applicant 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. 1,68,083/- under Section 37, 80V, 57, or Section 67 of the Income-tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its learned advocate Shri R.K. Patel, argued that it was entitled to claim the interest of Rs. 1,68,083/-. The specific grounds or provisions under which this claim was made are indicated in the question itself (Sections 37, 80V, 57, or 67). The assessee relied on the fact that a similar question was referred to the High Court in a previous matter. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by learned advocate Mr. Qureshi, contended that the assessee was not entitled to claim the interest. The Revenue's position is implicitly supported by the High Court's decision in the 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 3 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 --------------------------------------------------------------

HARSHADKUMAR N DALAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR R.K.PATEL WITH MR.B.D.KARIA FOR MR KC PATEL for Applicant No. 1 MR AKIL QURESHI 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 Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' has referred to this Court the following question of law under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961. "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.1,68,083/- u/s.37, 80V, 57 or Sec. 67 of the I.T.Act,1961?"

2.

We have heard learned Advocate Shri R.K.Patel, 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 →