COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GIRDHARLAL VITHALDAS PATEL

PDF · subscribers
ITR/157/1985HC GujaratGJHC24012289198514 June 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, per Mr. Justice A.R. Dave, noted that the learned Advocate for the Revenue had fairly conceded that the issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee in a previous reference (I.T.R. No. 282 of 1985). Consequently, the Court answered the reference in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. The specific reasoning from the prior judgment was not detailed in this order, but the principle applied was that a previously decided identical issue in favour of the assessee would be followed.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference No. 157 of 1985 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The reference was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is Girdharlal Vithaldas Patel, and the applicant is the Commissioner of Income Tax. The core of the matter is whether the assessee is entitled to claim deductions in full under Sections 80HH and 80J of the Act. The Revenue was represented by Mr. Mihir Joshi, while no one appeared for the assessee despite due service.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the true interpretation of Sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction in full, under both these sections? (Question of law and fact, concerning Sections 80HH and 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961). Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded as no one appeared for the respondent. Revenue: Learned Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi fairly submitted that this question has already been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by answering the question in the affirmative in I.T.R. No. 282 of 1985.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 80HH,Section 80J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

))

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 157 of 1985

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 GIRDHARLAL VITHALDAS PATEL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MIHIR JOSHI FOR MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant. SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1

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

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

Date of decision: 14/06/2001

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

1.

Following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Income Tax Appellate

Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench "A" under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and the true interpretation of sections 80HH & 80J of the Income-tax Act,1961 the assessee would be entitled to claim deduction in full, under both these sections?"

2.

We have heard learned Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi appearing for the Revenue. Nobody appears for the respondent assessee though the respondent has been duly served. Looking to the facts of the case, learned Advocate Mr.Mihir Joshi appearing for the Revenue has fairly submitted that this question has already been decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by answering the question in the affirmative in I.T.R.No.282 of 1985. 4. In view of the fact that as the above question, has already been decided, we answer the question in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

5.

Reference is answered accordingly and is disposed of 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 →