COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SURESH P AMIN FAMILY TRUST

PDF · subscribers
ITR/18/1996HC GujaratGJHC24021698199622 August 2006Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.S.GARG2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, consisting of R.S. Garg and M.R. Shah, JJ., held that the Tribunal was right in law. The Court referred to its own prior decision in an identical reference (I.T.R. No. 237 of 1995) between the same parties, which was decided on August 1, 2006, in favour of the assessee. As the facts were identical, the Court found no reason to deviate from its earlier ruling. Therefore, the question was answered against the interest of the Revenue. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded. The specific reasoning from the prior judgment is not detailed here, but the ratio decidendi is that a pathological laboratory, under the given facts, qualifies for investment allowance under Section 32A.

What were the facts?

This is an Income Tax Reference filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) against an order of the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench “C”. The assessee is Dr. Suresh P. Amin Family Trust. The reference concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in the provided text. The dispute revolves around whether a pathological laboratory run as a profession can be considered an industrial undertaking producing an article or thing, thereby entitling it to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for new machinery (a Pacer Machine) installed in the clinic. The High Court notes that an identical question between the same parties was decided on August 1, 2006, in favour of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a pathological laboratory, run as a profession, could be considered to be carrying on a business as an industrial undertaking which produced an article or thing, and was thus entitled to investment allowance under Section 32A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the new machinery, specifically a Pacer Machine, installed in his clinic? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, presented the question for the Court's opinion. The core of their argument, implied by the question posed, is that a pathological laboratory operating as a profession does not constitute an industrial undertaking producing an article or thing, and therefore, investment allowance under Section 32A should not be granted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 32A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR/18/1996 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 18 OF 1996 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 DR. SURESH P. AMIN FAMILY TRUST - Opponent(s) ==================================================================== Appearance : MRS. MONA BHATT with MR. MANISH R. BHATT for Applicant(s). NONE for Opponent(s). ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 22/08/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG) Present is a Reference by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench “C”, at the instance

ITR/18/1996 2/2 JUDGMENT of the Revenue on the following question for the opinion of this Court: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in a profession of pathological laboratory could be said to be carrying on a business as an industrial undertaking which produced an article or thing and was thus entitled to investment allowance u/s. 32A of the Act on the new machinery viz. Pacer Machine installed in his clinic?” 2. An identical question between the same parties had come up for our consideration in I.T.R. No.237 of 1995. We have answered the said Reference on 1st August, 2006 in favour of the Assessee. As the facts are identical, we are unable to take any different view than what was taken earlier. The question is answered against the interest of the Revenue. The Reference stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. [R.S.Garg, J.] [M. R. Shah, J.] kamlesh*

More judgments on Section 32A

All 120 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →