Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
High Court
16 Aug 1996 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
Date of order
16 Aug 1996
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, the High Court (1996) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The Reference is disposed of accordingly. ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT ============================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CO...
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 22 of 1983
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT ============================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR. P.K.JANI WITH MR MIHIR J.THAKORE for the Petitioner MR HM TALATI for Respondent No. 1 --------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and
MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT
Date of decision: 16/08/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT(N.J.Pandya,J.)
�The dispute related to granting of exemption to the respondent-assessee (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. Exemption was claimed on the basis of Sec.4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Sections 11 & 12 of the I.T.Act. 1961. The authorities below had accepted the contention of the assessee on the basis of a decision of A.P. High Court reported in 100 ITR 392. This decision has now been confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is reported in 159 ITR 1. The controversy therefore is now concluded by the pronouncement of the Apex Court. The Reference will have to be negatived as the aforesaid controversy is already decided in favour of the assessee. In other words, the Assessee is entitled to exemption. The Reference is disposed of accordingly.
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and
MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT
============================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------------------
MR. P.K.JANI WITH MR MIHIR J.THAKORE for the Petitioner
MR HM TALATI for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT�
��Date of decision: 16/08/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT(N.J.Pandya,J.)
�The dispute related to granting of exemption to
the respondent-assessee (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. Exemption was claimed on the basis of Sec.4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Sections 11 & 12 of the I.T.Act. 1961. The authorities below had accepted the contention of the assessee on the basis of a decision of A.P. High Court reported in 100 ITR 392. This decision has now been confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is reported in 159 ITR 1. The controversy therefore is now concluded by the pronouncement of the Apex Court. The Reference will have to be negatived as the aforesaid controversy is already decided in favour of the assessee. In other words, the Assessee is entitled to exemption. The Reference is disposed of accordingly.
���*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and
MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT
============================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------------------
MR. P.K.JANI WITH MR MIHIR J.THAKORE for the Petitioner
MR HM TALATI for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT�
��Date of decision: 16/08/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT(N.J.Pandya,J.)
�The dispute related to granting of exemption to
the respondent-assessee (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. Exemption was claimed on the basis of Sec.4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 corresponding to
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and
MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT
============================================================
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus GUJARAT STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION
-------------------------------------------------------------
MR. P.K.JANI WITH MR MIHIR J.THAKORE for the Petitioner
MR HM TALATI for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.J.PANDYA and MR.JUSTICE S.D.PANDIT�
��Date of decision: 16/08/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT(N.J.Pandya,J.)
�The dispute related to granting of exemption to
the respondent-assessee (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. Exemption was claimed on the basis of Sec.4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 corresponding to
Corporation. Exemption was claimed on the basis of Sec.4(3)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Sections 11 & 12 of the I.T.Act. 1961. The authorities below had accepted the contention of the assessee on the basis of a decision of A.P. High Court reported in 100 ITR 392. This decision has now been confirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court. It is reported in 159 ITR 1. The controversy therefore is now concluded by the pronouncement of the Apex Court. The Reference will have to be negatived as the aforesaid controversy is already decided in favour of the assessee. In other words, the Assessee is entitled to exemption. The Reference is disposed of accordingly.
���*****
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.