Court In Cit v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. (1999) 235
High Court
17 Jul 2002 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Court In Cit v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. (1999) 235
Date of order
17 Jul 2002
Assessment year(s)
1983-84
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Court In Cit v. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. (1999) 235, the High Court (2002) 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 BORON INVESTMENT CO., -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 317 of 1992
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
============================================================ 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 BORON INVESTMENT CO., -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 317 of 1992 MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date of decision: 17/07/2002
(Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
�In this reference at the instance of the revenue,
the following question is referred for our opinion in
respect of assessment year 1983-84:-
"Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on
facts in holding that interest u/s.215 should be
charged after giving credit for T.D.S. which was
not actually deducted and paid in the next year?"
2.�We have heard Mr Manish R Bhatt, learned Standing
Counsel for the applicant- revenue and Mr RK Patel,
learned counsel for the respondent - assessee.
3.�Our attention is invited to the decision of this
Court in CIT vs. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. (1999) 235
ITR 433 wherein this Court considered the same question
and answered it in favour of the assessee.
�Following the aforesaid decision, our answer
to the question referred to us is in the affirmative i.e.
in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
4.�The Reference accordingly stands disposed of with
no order as to costs.
���(M.S. Shah,J)�(K.A. Puj,J)
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.