COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LALLUBHAI G MEHTA CHARITABLE TRUST

ITR/192/1984HC GujaratGJHC24011866198401 April 1999Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE J.N.BHATT,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that all three questions referred to it were required to be answered in the negative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Questions 1 and 2 were covered by the High Court's previous decision in CIT v. Lallubhai Gordhandas Mehta Charitable Trust, 207 ITR 104. Question 3 was covered by another decision of the same court in Tax Reference No. 50/81, concerning the same assessee. The reasoning for answering these questions in the negative against the revenue implies that the Tribunal's original findings on these issues were upheld. The operative direction is that the reference stands disposed of accordingly, with all three questions answered in favour of the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided. The principle derived from the judgment is that prior High Court decisions on identical facts and issues concerning the same assessee are binding.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference No. 192 of 1984 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The reference was made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B', under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is Lallubhai G Mehta Charitable Trust. The questions of law pertain to assessment years not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history involves the Tribunal referring specific questions of law to the High Court for opinion. During the hearing, both parties drew the court's attention to a previous decision of the same High Court in CIT v. Lallubhai Gordhandas Mehta Charitable Trust, 207 ITR 104, which covered questions 1 and 2. Question 3 was covered by another decision of the same court in Tax Reference No. 50/81 concerning the same assessee.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide three questions of law referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 13(2)(h) read with Section 13(3) of the Act were not applicable to the facts of the case? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital of a concern referred to under Section 13(4) of the Act includes the borrowed moneys employed as capital in the concern? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income of the School run by the Trust was exempt under Section 10(22) of the Act? The assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded, but the judgment indicates that the previous High Court decisions were relied upon by the parties. The revenue's contentions are implicit in the questions referred, seeking to overturn the Tribunal's findings on the applicability of Section 13(2)(h) and 13(3), the definition of capital under Section 13(4), and the exemption under Section 10(22).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 13(2)(h),Section 13(3),Section 13(4),Section 10(22)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 192 of 1984

For Approval and Signature:

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

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? 2 to 5: No

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 256(1)

All 755 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →