BIPINBHAI VADILAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITR/395/1984HC GujaratGJHC24012060198428 April 1999Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BALIA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reasoning was based on the assessee's own submission that the annual letting value fixed in the year under consideration had been followed from an earlier year. Crucially, the High Court referred to its own prior decision in the case of Shri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust No.1 v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (77 Taxman 370), where it had held that there was no error in arriving at the finding about the annual letting value of the property in question. Therefore, following its precedent, the High Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's computation of the gross annual letting value at Rs. 18,000/- per annum. The operative direction was to answer the reference in favour of the revenue.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bipinbhai Vadilal, is challenging an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for the assessment year 1976-77. The ITAT's order, in ITA No. 835/Ahd/83, determined the gross annual letting value (ALV) of a property at Rs. 18,000 per annum. The assessee brought to the High Court's attention that for a previous year, the ALV fixed for the property in question had been followed. The High Court had previously decided against the assessee in a similar matter concerning the annual letting value of this property in the case of Shri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust No.1 v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, reported in 77 Taxman 370.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the gross annual letting value was correctly computed at Rs. 18,000/- per annum? (Question of law and fact, concerning the computation of gross annual letting value). Assessee's Contention: The assessee pointed out that the annual letting value fixed in the year under consideration had been followed from an earlier year. The assessee relied on the High Court's decision in Shri Bipinbhai Vadilal Family Trust No.1 v. Commissioner of Income-Tax (77 Taxman 370) for the proposition that the ALV fixed in the earlier year was correct. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, the revenue would have supported the ITAT's finding on the gross annual letting value.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 395 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?

--------

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →