Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.garden Silk Mills Pvt.ltd
High Court
07 Nov 2001 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.garden Silk Mills Pvt.ltd
Date of order
07 Nov 2001
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.garden Silk Mills Pvt.ltd, the High Court (2001) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus M/S.GARDEN SILK MILLS PVT.LTD. -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 138 of 1996
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 -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
M/S.GARDEN SILK MILLS PVT.LTD.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 138 of 1996
MR MIHIR JOSHI with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner
MR MANISH J SHAH for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date of decision: 07/11/2001
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
�The Tribunal has referred the following two questions at the instance of the revenue for the opinion of this Court :-
"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the
conclusion that the assessee was entitled
to a deduction of the sum of Rs.7000/paid
as legal fees in respect of the
proceedings in the case of M/s Garden
Silk Wvg. Factory a firm whose business
is taken over by the assessee limited
Company ?
�(2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case the Tribunal was right in law in
coming to the conclusion that
notwithstanding the provisions of Section 80VV of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the assessee was entitled to a deduction in respect of the sum of Rs.7000/- paid as
legal fees by the assessee Company in
respect of the proceedings of M/s Garden
Silk Wvg. Factory, the succeeded firm ?"
2.�The assessment year is 1983-84. The Tribunal relied upon its own decision in earlier assessment years and in light of the pendency of those references, this reference has been made.
3.�We have heard Mr Mihir Joshi, learned counsel for
the revenue and Mr MJ Shah, learned advocate for the respondent-assessee. At the time of hearing, our attention was invited to the decision dated 16.10.2001 in Income-tax Reference No. 81 of 1992 which was in respect of assessment year 1982-83. In the said decision, while deciding similar controversy, this Court relied upon the decision of this Court dated 14.11.2000 in Income-tax Reference No. 89 of 1985 pertaining to assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1978-79 in assessee's own case. Both the parties agree that identical controversy has already been decided in the aforesaid two decisions. For the reasons stated in the said decisions, we hold that the Tribunal was not right in law in coming to the conclusion that notwithstanding the provision of Section 80VV of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the assessee was entitled to deduction in respect of Rs.7000/- paid by the assessee as legal fees in respect of proceedings of M/s Garden Silk Weaving Factory. Both the questions referred to us are, therefore, answered in the negative i.e. in
favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
�The reference stands disposed of accordingly with
no order as to costs.
�����(M.S. Shah, J.)
�����(D.A. Mehta, J.)
sundar/-
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.