Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co.pvt. Ltd
High Court
16 Oct 2001 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co.pvt. Ltd
Date of order
16 Oct 2001
Assessment year(s)
1984-85
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co.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 SAYAJI IRON & ENGG.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 331 of 1992
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH Sd/-
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA 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
-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Versus
SAYAJI IRON & ENGG. CO.PVT. LTD.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
MR AKIL QURESHI FOR MR MANISH R BHATT for Applicant.
SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date of decision: 16/10/2001
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
�The following two questions have been referred
for the opinion of this Court at the instance of the revenue :
1 "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law, the
Appellate Tribunal was right in holding
that the sales tax paid after the close
of the previous year but before the due
date of filling of return u/s.139(1) was
an allowable deduction in A.Y.1984-85
when the provision to section 43B was
inserted with effect from 1st
April,1988?"
2 "Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case and in law the
Tribunal was right in holding that the
disallowance out of travelling expenses
under the provisions of rule 6-D of the
I.T.Rules should be worked out by
aggregating the expenditure on all tours
undertaken by an employee during the
year, instead of working out the
disallowance for each such tour?"
2�The assessment year is 1984-85. We have heard
Mr.Akil Qureshi, learned Counsel for the revenue. Though
served none appears for the assessee.
3�It was fairly pointed out by Mr.Qureshi that
first question stands concluded by the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Allied Motors (P) Ltd. vs.
C.I.T., 224 ITR 677. Following the said decision we
answer the first question in the affirmative i.e. in
favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
4�So far as the second question is concerned, our
attention was drawn to a decision of this Court in Income Tax Reference No.54 of 1988. Following the said decision we hold that the Tribunal was not right in computing the
disallowance of travelling expenses under section 6D of
the Income Tax Rules by aggregating the expenditure on
all tours undertaken by an employee during the year
instead of working out the disallowance for each tour.
Accordingly, the second question is answered in the
negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the
assessee.
4�The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
���Sd/-��Sd/-
���(M.S.Shah, J)�(D.A.Mehta,J)
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.