COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. AMORA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal was right and justified in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. The High Court noted that the issue concerning the taxability of rental income from Bank of Baroda as income from business had already been decided by the same court in relation to earlier years between the same parties (ITR No. 79/88, reported in 2002 258 ITR 519). Consequently, the Tribunal's decision for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1984-85 was upheld. Question 2 in ITR No. 13/97 was dependent on Question 1 and was also decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Both references were answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. No specific operative directions were issued beyond answering the questions.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Amora Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., leased property, advanced loans for construction, and then leased parts to Bank of Baroda. The assessee treated rental income as business income, but the Revenue contended otherwise. The Tribunal, for earlier assessment years (1979-80 to 1981-82) involving the same parties, had held the rental income taxable as business income. This earlier decision was upheld by the Gujarat High Court in ITR No. 79/88, reported in 2002 258 ITR 519. The present references concern assessment years 1986-87 and 1984-85, with the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's decision to follow its prior ruling.
What were the issues?
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the rental income from Bank of Baroda was taxable under the head 'Income from business'? (ITR No. 11/97 and ITR No. 13/97, Question 1) 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in upholding the direction given by the first appellate authority to allow carry forwarded business loss treating the income from leasing as income from business? (ITR No. 13/97, Question 2) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: Not recorded. The judgment states that the Tribunal relied on its earlier decision for assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82, which was confirmed by the High Court in ITR No. 79/88. The Revenue has brought these references before the High Court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITR/11/1997 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 11 of 1997 With INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 13 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Applicant(s) Versus AMORA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MRS. MONA M BHATT for Applicant(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 31/08/2006
ITR/11/1997 2/4 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG) 1. Mrs. Mona Bhatt, learned counsel for the Revenue. None for the respondent though served. This order shall dispose of ITRs. No. 11/97 and 13/97. 2. At the instance of the Revenue, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ”C” has referred the following questions arising out of the Income-tax Appeal No. 2142/Ahd./91, relating to assessment year 1986-87 and Income-tax Appeal No. 2976/Ahd./91 relating to the assessment year 1984-85 to this Court for the opinion of this Court. ITR No. 11/97:- “Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the rental income from Bank of Baroda was taxable under the head Income from business?” ITR No. 13/97:- “1.Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the rental income from Bank of Baroda was taxable under the head Income from business? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is
ITR/11/1997 3/4 JUDGMENT justified in upholding the direction given by the first appellate authority to allow carry forwarded business loss treating the income from leasing as income from business?” 3. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present References are that the assessee is a company, which had entered into a lease agreement with Hindu Undivided Family, after taking property on lease, it advanced certain loans to the said Hindu Undivided Family for further construction, thereafter, certain parts which could be constructed were given on lease in favour of the bank of the assessee. The rent receipt from the bank was treated by the assessee as income from business, but the contention of the Revenue was otherwise. The Tribunal, in the matter of the very same assessee for the assessment years 1979-80 to 1981-82 observed that the lease income would be taken to be income from business and it would be accordingly taxable as income from business. Relying upon the earlier judgment, the Tribunal decided the matter in favour of the assessee. The earlier matter was referred to this Court at the instance of the Revenue and was registered as ITR No. 79/88. The said matter was finally decided by this Court on 28.8.02 [reported in 2002 258 ITR 519), in favour of the assessee. As the issue is already decided by this Court in
ITR/11/1997 4/4 JUDGMENT relation to the earlier years between the same parties, we must hold that the Tribunal was right and justified in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee. Question no.2 in ITR 13/97 is dependent upon the question no.1 and as the question no.1 in both the References is decided against the Revenue, question no.2 in ITR No. 13/97 is also decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Both the References are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. They are accordingly disposed of. No costs. [R.S. GARG, J.] [M.R. SHAH, J.] pirzada/-
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026