THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. TATA PROJECTS LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/56/1999HC Bombay05 March 2007Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the application was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Britannia Industries V/s. CIT - 278 ITR 546. This Supreme Court judgment was stated to be against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Consequently, by consent of both parties, the application was treated as a 'Statement of Case'. The substantial question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. The reference was disposed of accordingly. The specific reasoning of the Supreme Court in Britannia Industries was not detailed in this judgment, but it was the basis for the High Court's decision.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns Income Tax Application No. 56 of 1999, filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai City-I (the Revenue), against M/s. Tata Projects Ltd. (the Assessee). The assessment year in question is 1986-87. The application was admitted on June 23, 1999, and pertains to a substantial question of law regarding the deletion of an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning expenses for the maintenance of a guest house. The High Court heard the learned counsel for both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made by the AO under Section 37(4) of the Income Tax Act in respect of expenses for maintenance of a guest house? The Assessee argued that the Tribunal was correct in deleting the addition. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition. Both parties acknowledged that the issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Britannia Industries V/s. CIT - 278 ITR 546.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.56 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.56 OF 1999 INCOME TAX APPLICATION NO.56 OF 1999 The Commissioner of Income Tax Mumbai City-I, Mumbai .. Petitioner V/s M/s.Tata Projects Ltd. 24 Homi Mody Street, Bombay 400 001. .. Respondents Mr.A.Kotangale for the Petitioner. Mr.A.Singh i/by Mr.K.Gopal for the Respondents. CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

DATE : 5th March, 2007. DATE : 5th March, 2007. DATE : 5th March, 2007. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (PER DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. This Application pertains to the Assessment Year 1986-87. This Application has been admitted on 23.6.1999 on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition made by the A.O.u/s.37(4) of the Income Tax Act in respect of expenses for maintenance of guest house?" 2. Both the learned Counsel fairly state that the issue involved in this application is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Britania Britania Britania Industries V/s.CIT - 278 ITR 546, Industries V/s.CIT - 278 ITR 546, Industries V/s.CIT - 278 ITR 546, against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In view thereof, the Application is allowed. 3. By consent of both the parties, application be treated as "Statement of Case". In view of the decision CNR No : HCBM020009901999 Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:59:30

of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Britania Industries case (supra), the question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. Reference stands disposed of. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) Uploaded on - 21/08/2020 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 05:59:30 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

More judgments on Section 37(4)

All 28 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →