COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. DECOM MARKETING PVT LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/255/1983HC GujaratGJHC24011723198325 October 1996Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SONI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not answer the questions referred to it. The Court noted that the questions referred pertained to questions of fact. The learned counsel for the Revenue was unable to contest the fact that the questions were questions of fact. Given the concurrent findings of the lower authorities on these facts, the High Court decided not to answer the questions. Consequently, the Reference stands disposed of. The specific findings of the Tribunal on each of the three referred questions, the reasoning behind those findings, and the operative directions are not detailed in this High Court judgment as the Court chose not to adjudicate on the merits of the referred questions.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference No. 255 of 1983 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A', made the reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal referred three questions (numbered 2, 3, and 4) to the High Court, having decided not to refer question number 1. The reference concerns the assessment of Decom Marketing Pvt Ltd. The Commissioner of Income Tax is the petitioner, and Decom Marketing Pvt Ltd. is the respondent. The High Court heard learned counsel for the Revenue and reviewed the orders of the authorities below.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was asked to decide three questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in concluding that a sum of Rs. 15,881 paid to Human Resources P.Ltd. towards a Provident Fund scheme was allowable as an expenditure. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in concluding that a sum of Rs. 9,456.26 incurred by the assessee was not disallowable under Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in concluding that publicity sundry expenses of Rs. 26,781.80 were not disallowable under Section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that these were questions of law. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The judgment does not mention any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either side.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1),Section 37(2B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 255 of 1983

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.M.SONI and MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT ============================================================ 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 DECOM MARKETING PVT LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: Mr.B.J.Shelat for MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED for Respondent

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE S.M.SONI and MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT Date of decision: 25/10/96

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per Soni J.)

Income-tax Appellate Tribunal,Ahmedabad Bench 'A', has under sec.256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 made this Reference. The Tribunal has referred questions nos.2,3 and 4 out of four questions being prayed to refer to us. We would continue the numbers of the questions as they are referred to us. We make it further clear that Tribunal decided not to refer question no.1 to us. The questions referred to us are as under:-

2.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs.15,881/- paid to the Human Resources P.Ltd. towards Provident fund scheme was allowable as an expenditure ? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the sum of Rs.9456.26 incurred by the assessee was not disallowable under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the publicity sundry expenses of Rs.26,781.80 was not disallowable under section 37(2B) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ?

We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and we have been taken through all the orders of the authorities below.

As questions referred to us pertain to questions of facts and as learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to contest the fact that the questions are questions of facts and there being concurrent finding of the lower authorities on these facts, we do not propose to anwser the questions referred to us. In view of this, the Reference stands disposed of.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →