DY. C.I.T. vs. LAKHANPAL NATIONAL LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/377/2000HC GujaratGJHC24022897200024 November 2014Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KS JHAVERI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.J.THAKER4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue in the present appeals was squarely covered by its own previous decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lakhanpal National Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 365. In that case, the questions of law and facts were found to be similar to those in the present appeals. Therefore, the Court found no need to provide elaborate reasoning. The question of law was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently, both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Dy. C.I.T., has filed two appeals before the High Court of Gujarat challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). Tax Appeal No. 377/2000 pertains to AY 1989-99 and challenges the ITAT's order in ITA No. 317/Ahd/1993. Tax Appeal No. 378/2000 pertains to AY 1988-89 and challenges the ITAT's order in ITA No. 2741/Ahd/1992. The assessee, Lakhanpal National Ltd., had filed its return of income for AY 1989-99. Following assessment proceedings, the assessee appealed to the CIT(A), which was partly allowed. Further appeals to the ITAT by the assessee were allowed, leading to the present appeals by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee's advocate submitted that the issue is squarely covered by this Court's decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lakhanpal National Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 365, where the questions of law and facts were similar. Therefore, no elaborate reasons were needed, and the appeals deserved to be dismissed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue's advocate. However, the Revenue is the appellant, indicating disagreement with the ITAT's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-I,Section 143(2),Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

O/TAXAP/377/2000 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 377 of 2000 With TAX APPEAL NO. 378 of 2000

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

================================================================ 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 ? ================================================================ DY. C.I.T.....Appellant(s) Versus LAKHANPAL NATIONAL LTD.....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR KM PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and Page 1 of 4

O/TAXAP/377/2000 JUDGMENT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER

Date : 24/11/2014

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant of Tax Appeal No. 377/2000 has challenged the judgment and order dated 7.3.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 317/Ahd/1993 for AY 1989-99 and the appellant of Tax Appeal No. 378/2000 has challenged the judgment and order dated 7.3.2000 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.2741/Ahd/1992 for AY 1988-89. 2. While admitting these appeal on 13.11.2000, the following substantial question of law has been framed by this Court: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled for the deduction as claimed by it u/s. 80-I of the Act ?” 3. The facts of the present case are that the assessee company has filed return of income, declaring the total taxable income at Rs. 64,17,710/- on 28.12.1989. The return was accompanied with the computation of income, annual accounts of the Company, tax audit report Page 2 of 4

O/TAXAP/377/2000 JUDGMENT in form No. 3CA and 3 CD in pursuance of section 44AB of the IT Act. In response to notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, necessary details were given by the company. Thereafter, the considering the material on record, the assessment order came to be filed. Against the said order, the assessee company has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) which was partly allowed. Against the said order of CIT(A), the assesse has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed. Against the said order of the Tribunal, both these appeals are preferred by the Revenue before this Court.

4.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. 5. Learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that between the same parties, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Lakhanpal National Ltd., reported in 304 ITR 365, where the question of law and facts are similar. In view of this, no elaborate reasons are given and both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. The question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Both the appeals are dismissed. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) Page 3 of 4

O/TAXAP/377/2000 JUDGMENT (K.J.THAKER, J) mandora Page 4 of 4

More judgments on Section 80-I

All 142 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →