ELSCOPE PVT. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITR/85/1986HC GujaratGJHC24010709198611 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 question referred to it in the present reference is identical to the question decided in the case of M/s. Kalindi Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (supra). In that cited case, the question was decided in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the revenue. Therefore, applying the precedent, the High Court answered the question in the present reference in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The court found that the investment allowance originally allowed was properly withdrawn. The reference is answered accordingly, with no order as to costs. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference No. 85 of 1986 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The assessee is Elscope Pvt. Ltd., and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax. The reference was made at the instance of the assessee under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B'. The core of the dispute revolves around the withdrawal of investment allowance that was initially allowed to the assessee. Both parties, represented by their respective advocates, appeared before the court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, investment allowance originally allowed was properly withdrawn? (Question of law/mixed fact and law, concerning investment allowance provisions). Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its advocate Shri R.K. Patel, did not present specific arguments but relied on the reference being made to the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by advocate Shri B.B. Naik, submitted that the question referred to the court has been concluded by a prior decision of the High Court in the case of M/s. Kalindi Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, reported in 213 ITR 207. The revenue contended that the issue in the present reference is identical to the one decided in the cited case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 85 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- ELSCOPE PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR RK PATEL for Petitioner MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1

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

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

Date of decision: 11/06/2001

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

At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of sec. 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B'.

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, investment allowance originally allowed was properly withdrawn?"

2.

We have heard learned advocate Shri R.K. Patel appearing for the applicant-assessee and learned advocate Shri B.B. Naik appearing for the respondent-department.

3.

It has been fairly submitted by the learned advocates that the question, which has been referred to this court in this reference, has been now concluded in case of M/s. Kalindi Investments Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT, 213 ITR 207. 4. It is not in dispute that the question of law, which has been raised in the present reference and in the case which has been referred to hereinabove, is identical.

5.

The question, which has been referred to hereinabove, has been decided in affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue in the case of M/s. Kalindi Investments (supra).

6.

In view of the said fact, the question, which has been referred to this court in the present reference is also answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs.

(A.R. Dave, J.)

(D.A. Mehta, J.) (hn)

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 253 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →