Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Ajod Investments Pvt Ltd
High Court
25 Jun 2003 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Ajod Investments Pvt Ltd
Date of order
25 Jun 2003
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Ajod Investments Pvt Ltd, the High Court (2003) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXVersus AJOD INVESTMENTS PVT LTD -------------------------------------------------------------- Appeara...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 197 of 1991
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
============================================================
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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXVersus
AJOD INVESTMENTS PVT LTD
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 197 of 1991
MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1
MR B.D. KARIA for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
and
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
Date of decision: 25/06/2003
(Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE)
1.�At the instance of the revenue, the following question of law arising out of an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench-A has been referred to this Court under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
to as the "Act").
"Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in cancelling the interest charged under Section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act,
1961?"
2.�Learned Standing Counsel Shri Tanvish Bhatt has
appeared for the applicant-revenue whereas learned
advocate Shri B.D. Karia has appeared for the
respondent-assessee.
3.�The learned advocates appearing for the parties have fairly submitted that the question of law, which has been referred to this Court in this Reference, has been decided by this Court in I.T.R. No.223/1991.
4.�It has been submitted by the learned advocates that in the instant case also, the amount of interest, which was to be paid by the assessee to the concerned creditors during the relevant assessment year, was neither paid nor their accounts had been credited by the amount of interest and, therefore, there was no liability on the part of the assessee to deduct the amount of tax on the said amount of interest as per the provisions of Section 194 (A) (1) of the Act
5.�In view of the aforestated undisputed fact, we are in respectful agreement with the judgement delivered in the case of I.T.R. No.223/1991 and decide the question referred to this Court in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
�The Reference stands disposed of with no order as
to costs.
�����(A.R. DAVE,J.)
���� (A.M. KAPAIDA,J.)
siji
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.