In Bajaria Brothers 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? : NO Nos.1 to 5 NO -------------------------------------------------------------- BAJARIA BROTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner MR MANISH R...
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 1 of 1987
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and Sd/-
MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Sd/-
============================================================
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
Nos.1 to 5 NO
--------------------------------------------------------------
BAJARIA BROTHERS
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner
MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and
MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL
Date of decision: 13/08/1999
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per B.C.Patel,J)
�Learned Counsel for the assessee has placed before us the Xerox copy of the letter addressed to assessee by the Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated 23.2.1999 indicating the benefits granted under Karvivad Samadhan Scheme 1988. Along with the letter Xerox copy of intimation under section 90(1) in respect of Karvivad Samadhan Scheme is also enclosed. Challan in respect of the payment is also enclosed. In view of this he states that this reference is not required to be answered. Mr.M.R.Bhatt, learned Counsel has fairly stated that the question raised by the revenue is not required to be answered as proceedings have been terminated and now there is no dispute with regard to the question raised. Hence permission is granted to withdraw the reference. Rule is discharged. No order as to cost.
���-----
m.m.bhatt
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.