Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Surat Dist Co Op Spinning Mill
High Court
20 Aug 2001 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Surat Dist Co Op Spinning Mill
Date of order
20 Aug 2001
Assessment year(s)
1978-79, 1981-82
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Surat Dist Co Op Spinning Mill, the High Court (2001) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO @ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVersus SURAT DIST CO OP SPINNING MILL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1.
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 280 of 1987
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 TAXVersus SURAT DIST CO OP SPINNING MILL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 280 of 1987 MR BB NAIK with MR RP BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date of decision: 28/08/2001
(Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
�The following two separate questions are referred
to us for our opinion in respect of assessment years 1978-79 and 1981-82:
ASSESSMENT YEAR 1978-79:
(i) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in law, in
holding that the assessee was eligible to a
deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act on
interest of Rs.3396/- received by the assessee
from the Cooperative Societies without taking
into account that a sum of Rs.6,.52,321/- was
paid by the assessee as interest to other
Cooperative Societies and thus, there is no
positive surplus under this source ?"
ASSESSMENT YEAR 1981-82:
(ii) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in law in
holding that the assessee was eligible to relief
under section 80 P(2)(d) of the Act on interest
of Rs.55,503/- received by the assessee from the
cooperative societies without taking into account
that sum of Rs.4,48,000/- was paid by the
assessee as interest to other cooperative
societies and there is no positive surplus under
this source ?"
2.�It is pointed out to us that a Reference was made
to this Court by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on the
same controversy in the case of C.I.T. vs. Surat District Cooperative Milk Producers' Union and by the decision in that case reported in 211 ITR 726, this Court left the question unanswered for the reasons given in the judgment. The Tribunal was directed to decide the
question on merits after considering the relevant facts
and law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, reported in 113 ITR 84 (S.C.) and Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in 155 ITR 120. Following the said decision the question referred to us is left unanswered, leaving it open to the Tribunal to
decide the question on merits after considering the relevant facts in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the earlier decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. Surat Dist. Cooperative Milk Producers' Union Ltd. 211 ITR 726.
with no order as to costs.
***********
zgs/-
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.