Karnavti Investment P Ltd (Ivl v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 79 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH ============================================================ 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 Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- KARNAVTI INVESTMENT P LTD (IVL) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR RK PATEL for Petitioner MR AKIL QURESHI with MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL and MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH Date of decision: 11/01/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) �In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following questions are referred to us in respect of assessment year 1982-83 :- �1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that the Commissioner of Income-tax had rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act ? �2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that relief u/s. 80M of the Act is to be computed after deducting relief u/s. 80K of the Act ? 2.�At the hearing of the reference, the learned counsel for the assessee has fairly stated that since question No. 2 is already decided by this Court in favour of the revenue, the assessee does not press for an answer to question No. 1. In view of the above, question No. 1 is not answered. 3.�As far as question No. 2 is concerned, the learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy raised herein is concluded by the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Sarabhai & Sons, (1995) 211 ITR 20 wherein this Court held that in computing deductions allowable under sub-section (1) of section 80M, the net dividend income should be reduced by the deductions allowable to the assessee under section 80K, as provided in sub-section (2) of section 80M. 4.�In view of the above decision, we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. �The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ����(J.M. Panchal, J.) ����(M.S. Shah, J.) sundar/-