C.I.T vs. AVERY CYCLES IND.

PDF · subscribers
ITR/212/1995HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032276199518 September 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law referred to it was covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax and another (2005) 278 ITR 546. Consequently, the question was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The reasoning is that the Supreme Court's decision on a similar issue dictates the outcome. The operative direction is to answer the reference accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana (the revenue) has referred a question of law to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. This arose from an order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, dated July 29, 1993, in R.A. No.188/Chandi/1993. The assessment year in question is 1984-85. The dispute pertains to car repair expenses amounting to Rs.40,045, which the Tribunal held were not includible for the purpose of disallowance under Section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee is M/s Avery Cycle Industries (P) Ltd., Ludhiana.

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 car repair expenses of Rs.40,045/- were not includible for purposes of disallowance u/s 37(3A) of the Act? The revenue's contention, as implied by the question referred, is that these expenses should have been disallowed under Section 37(3A). The Tribunal, however, held otherwise. The judgment does not explicitly record the arguments made by the assessee or the revenue before the High Court, other than the fact that the question of law was referred for the opinion of the Court. The High Court's decision is based on a Supreme Court judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37(3A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.212 of 1995 Date of decision: 18.09.2006 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Ludhiana. -----Applicant Vs. M/s Avery Cycle Industries (P) Ltd., Ludhiana. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the revenue. Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the assessee. ----- ORDER: Following question of law has been referred for the opinion of this Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh arising out of its order dated 29.7.1993 in R.A. No.188/Chandi/1993 in respect of assessment year 1984-85:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that Car repair expenses of Rs.40,045/- were not includible for purposes of disallowance u/s 37(3A) of the Act?.” We find that the question of law, referred to above, is covered against the assessee by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Britannia Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax and another (2005) 278 ITR 546.

Accordingly, the question is answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 18, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE

More judgments on Section 37(3A)

All 29 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37(3A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →