Gujarat Tea Processors And Packes Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
12 Sep 2002 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Gujarat Tea Processors And Packes Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
12 Sep 2002
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Gujarat Tea Processors And Packes Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2002) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? @ GUJARAT TEA PROCESSORS AND PACKES PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 75 of 1991
with
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 89 of 1992
with
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 356 of 1993
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? @
GUJARAT TEA PROCESSORS AND PACKES PVT LTD
Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 75 of 1991 MR JP SHAH for Petitioner No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH for Petitioner No. 1 MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
and
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Date of decision: 12/09/2002
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
�The assessee has raised the following two
identical questions for three assessment years, being
Assessment Years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86,
respectively.
"1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law and on
facts in coming to the conclusion that the
assessee which was engaged in blending, grading
and packing of tea for making it into a
marketable commodity was not entitled to the
deduction u/s 80J of the I.T. Act, 1961?
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to relief u/s
80J in view of the decision of the Gujarat High
Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement & Chemical
Industries Ltd. (123 ITR 669)?"
2.�Heard Mr. M.J. Shah, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant-assessee and Mr. M.R. Bhatt, Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-revenue.
3.�It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail as it is common ground between the parties that the questions raised in each of the 3 references stand concluded by a decision rendered by this Court on 5.9.2002 in I.T.R. No. 146/89 in assessee's own case.
4.�For the reasons stated in the aforesaid decision,
we hold that the Tribunal was not right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to relief u/s 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and that the assessee was entitled to relief u/s 80J of the Act in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Saurashtra Cement
and Chemical Industries Ltd., 123 ITR 669.
5.�The questions referred are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in all in favour of the assessee and against the revenue in all
the three references.
�The references stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
�����(A.R. Dave, J.)
�����(D.A. Mehta, J.)
(hn)
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.