In View Of The Decision Of Britannia Industriesltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another
High Court
14 Sep 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
In View Of The Decision Of Britannia Industriesltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another
Date of order
14 Sep 2016
Assessment year(s)
1983-84
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In In View Of The Decision Of Britannia Industriesltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Issue: Anuroop Singhi, for the respondent. ***** 1.This reference has been sent to this court for answering the following question which reads as under:- “Whether the learned Tribunal was right inlaw in holding that rent of Rs.
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 JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANBENCH AT JAIPUR.
D.B. Income Tax Reference No.2/1996
M/s Saraf Textile Mills Pvt. Ltd.Vs.CIT
DATE OF ORDER ::: 14.9.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Mr. C.M. Sharma, for the petitioner.Mr. Anuroop Singhi, for the respondent.
*****
1.This reference has been sent to this court for
answering the following question which reads as under:-
“Whether the learned Tribunal was right inlaw in holding that rent of Rs. 5850/- inrespect of Guest House would not beallowable under section 30 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961, but would be disallowableunder sub-section (4) read with sub-section(5) of Section 37 of the Act?”
2.The facts of the case are that the assessee is aprivate limited company engaged in the business of makinggarments and selling them in Indian as well as foreignmarkets. It maintains its accounts on mercantile system andadopts Diwali ending as its previous year. The previous yearfor A.Y. 1983-84 ended with Diwali Samvat 1982 and thatfor A.Y. 84-85 with Diwali Samvat 1983 (4.11.83).
2.1The assessee had claimed a sum of Rs. 5850/- onaccount of rent paid to Shri K.M-Gupta for 13 months @ Rs.
450/- per month in respect of a guest house. The Income-tax authorities rejected assessee's said claim on the groundthat the expenditure in question was incurred in respect of aGuest House at Bombay and such expenditure was notallowable under Section 37(4) read with Section 37(5) of
the Act.
3.In view of the decision of Britannia IndustriesLtd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and another
reported in (2005) 278 ITR 546 (SC), the issue is requiredto be answered in favour of the department.4.Therefore, the same is answered in favour of thedepartment against the assessee.
(Banwari Lal Sharma), J. (K.S. Jhaveri), J.
Brijesh85.
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.