In Arbuda Mills Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2001) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- ARBUDA MILLS LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 163 of 1988
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO
of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- ARBUDA MILLS LTD
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 163 of 1988
NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner No. 1
MR AKIL KURESHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date of decision: 25/10/2001
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
�This is a reference at the instance of the
assessee. However, when the reference is called out for
hearing none appears for the applicant-assessee, though
served. Mr Akil Kureshi learned counsel appears for the
revenue.
2.�Since no one appears for the assessee in the
reference made at the instance of the assessee, we
decline to answer the question referred for our opinion
at the instance of the assessee.
3.�The Reference accordingly stands disposed of with
no order as to costs.
�����(M.S. Shah,J)
�����(D.A. Mehta,J)
zgs/-
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.