Itr/1/1999 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Vikshara Trading & Investmentsltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 1 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Sd/- ========================================================= 1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed ]to see the judgment ? NOto see the judgment ? NO 2To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment ? NOof the judgment ? NO Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the of law as to the interpretation of the 4constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NOconstitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5[Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ]? NO? NO ========================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Applicant(s)Versus VIKSHARA TRADING & INVESTMENTSLTD. - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :MR BB NAIKfor Applicant(s) : 1,MR JP SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1,MR MANISH J SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1,MR KETAN H SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 07/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'A' has referred the following question under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at the instance of the Revenue. “Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 80I of the Act ?” 2The Assessment Year is 1991-92. In relation to the controversy the Tribunal has observed as under: ”4The facts and the arguments of both the sides are identical to those discussed by us in our detailed order in ITA No. 5122/96 relating to the A.Y.93-94 in the case of the assessee. For the detailed reasons given therein we decline to interfere and uphold the finding of the CIT(A). This ground accordingly fails and is dismissed.” 3In the aforesaid circumstances, for the reasons stated in judgment of even date rendered in assessee's own case for Assessment Year 1993-94 in Income Tax Reference No. 3 of 1999 the question is left unanswered. 4The Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Sd/- (D.A.Mehta, J.) Sd/- (Z.K.Saiyed, J.) M.M.BHATT