Itr/192/1983 Of Garden Silk Mills Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
29 Aug 1996 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Itr/192/1983 Of Garden Silk Mills Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
29 Aug 1996
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Itr/192/1983 Of Garden Silk Mills Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (1996) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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.192 of 1983
For approval and Signature :
Hon'ble Mr.Justice N.J.PANDYA :
and
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.D.PANDIT :
================================================�
The Garden Silk Mills Pvt.Ltd.
�versus
The Commissioner of Income Tax,Surat.
----------------------------------------------�
�J.P.Shah,for the applicant
�Mr.Mihir Thakore,Adv.with Mr.Manish
R.Bhatt,Advocate for the respondent.
------------------------------------------------
�CORAM ; N.J.PANDYA & S.D.PANDIT,JJ.
29-8-1996
ORAL JUDGMENT
Per S.D.Pandit,J.
�The Income Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad has
referred the following questions to this court " whether the Tribunal was right in not allowing gratuity of Rs.3,67,199/- being expenditure incurred in respect of the relevant previous year for further payment on scientific method of calculation." The tribunal had not allowed the contention of the learned assessee for allowing the said expenditure and because of the same, the assessee has prayed before the tribunal to refer the said questions to this Court, but when this reference came up for hearing before us, the learned advocate for the assessee very fairly conceeded before us that in view of the decision of the Appex Court in 156 I.T.R.Page 585, the reference will have to be answered in favour of
the revenue and in view of the said decision of the Appex Court,he would not press for the reference.We accordingly answer the reference in question in affirmative and disposed of the same with no order as to cost.
��* * * * *
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.