COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GEETA MAYOR (JP) TRUST NO 145

PDF · subscribers
ITR/313/1992HC GujaratGJHC24015653199230 July 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.C.PATEL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad disposed of the reference unanswered. The Court noted that the matter was decided in favour of the assessee by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, based on earlier decisions by the authorities and a concession made before the Tribunal. The Court referred to a previous case, CIT v. Leena Sarabhai (N.Ch.), 221 ITR 520, where, due to peculiar facts and circumstances, the question was left unanswered. Consequently, in the present case, the reference also stands disposed of unanswered. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against the Geeta Mayor (JP) Trust No 145. The reference was made to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad for its opinion on a question of law. The matter had previously been decided in favour of the assessee by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The judgment notes that the decision in favor of the assessee was based on earlier decisions by authorities, including the Tribunal, and a concession made before the Tribunal. The High Court referenced a similar case, CIT v. Leena Sarabhai (N.Ch.), 221 ITR 520, where the question was left unanswered due to peculiar facts and circumstances.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that there was no taxable capital gains? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's arguments. However, it implies that the assessee succeeded before the Tribunal based on earlier decisions and a concession made before the Tribunal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's arguments. However, the reference itself indicates the Commissioner of Income Tax is challenging the Tribunal's order, implying a disagreement with the finding of no taxable capital gains.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 313 of 1992

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ============================================================ 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?

-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GEETA MAYOR (JP) TRUST NO 145 -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner MR RK PATEL and MR.B.D.KARIA for Respondent.

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Date of decision: 30/07/98

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per C.K.Thakkar,J.):

The following question is referred for the opinion of this Court:-

"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law

and on facts in holding that there was no taxable capital gains?"

The matter was decided in favour of assessee in view of the earlier decision by the authorities, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the concession made before the Tribunal. In fact, in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. LEENA SARABHAI (N.CH.), 221 ITR 520, when the matter reached this Court, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the question was left unanswered. In these circumstances, this reference also stands disposed of unanswered. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.

***

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →