In Associated Engineering Corp v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (1999) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? -------------------------------------------------------------- ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING CORP.
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 20 of 1998
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING CORP.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR RAMESH M SHAH for Petitioner
MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.BALIA. and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
Date of decision: 03/05/99
ORAL JUDGEMENT
1.�Learned Counsel for the assessee seeks permission
to withdraw this reference in terms of proviso to Section
90(4) of Finance (No.2) Act of 1998, in order to enable him to furnish proof of the withdrawal of Reference along with intimation referred to in subsection (2) of Section 90 of the said Act to avail the benefit of Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme. As the learned counsel for the assessee does not want to press for the reference the same is returned unanswered as per request for withdrawal of the reference by the assessee.
��(Rajesh Balia, J)�(A.R. Dave, J)
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.