NEW INDIA INDUSTRIES LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

ITR/341/1984HC GujaratGJHC24012006198428 April 1999Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BALIA,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, arising from appellate orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Branch B, for assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The assessee, New India Industries Ltd., had appealed certain decisions of the Tribunal. The reference was made at the instance of the assessee. The High Court was asked to decide six questions of law. The proceedings before the High Court were initiated by the assessee's reference application to the Tribunal, which then referred the questions to the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the questions as follows: Question 1: Following its own decision in CIT v. SLM Maneklal Industries Limited, the Court held that sur-tax liability is not allowable as a deduction in computing business income. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue. Question 2: Following its decisions in Isabgul Export Corporation v. CIT and Testeels Limited v. CIT, the Court held that relief under Section 35B for interest on export bills and bank charges was not allowable. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue. Question 3: Following its decision in CIT v. Rohit Mills, the Court held that for the limit of disallowance under Section 40C, the amount of commission paid was to be included. The question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue. Questions 4 & 5: Following its decision in CIT v. New India Industries Limited (assessee's own case), the Court held that rental income from factory premises used by the lessee is chargeable under the head 'Income from house property', and depreciation is not allowable. The questions were answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue. Question 6: The Court held that the amendment to Section 37 by way of Explanation is not retrospective prior to April 1, 1976. Therefore, for assessment year 1975-76, the amended provision was not applicable. The disallowance of Rs.17,429/- as entertainment expenditure was not justified. The question was answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide six questions of law. 1. Whether the sur-tax liability is an allowable deduction in computing business income, as argued by the assessee, or not, as held by the Tribunal. 2. Whether relief under Section 35B for interest on export bills and bank charges was allowable for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77, as claimed by the assessee, or not, as held by the Tribunal. 3. Whether, for the purpose of the limit of disallowance under Section 40C, the amount of commission paid should be included, as argued by the assessee, or not, as held by the Tribunal following a Special Bench decision. 4. Whether rent income from factory building No. 2 was chargeable under the head 'Income from house property' and no depreciation was allowable under Section 32(1)(ii), as held by the Tribunal, or if it should be treated as business income with depreciation allowed, as claimed by the assessee. 5. If the answer to question 4 is affirmative, whether the Tribunal was correct in invoking Section 32(1) read with Section 38(2) to disallow depreciation on the factory building despite it being a business asset, as held by the Tribunal, or if depreciation should be allowed, as claimed by the assessee. 6. Whether the disallowance of Rs.17,429/- as expenditure for entertainment was justified for assessment year 1975-76, as held by the Tribunal, or if it was not entertainment expenditure, as claimed by the assessee. The revenue did not record any specific arguments for each question, but their position was in line with the Tribunal's decisions which were being challenged.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35B,Section 40C,Section 32(1)(ii),Section 32(1),Section 38(2),Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 341 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?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

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

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question 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?

------

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 accountSign 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.

More judgments on Section 35B

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →