Ketu Investment Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 61 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH 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 Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- KETU INVESTMENT PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 61 of 1991 MR RK PATEL for Petitioner No. 1 MR BB NAIK with MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 16/10/2001 (Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) �In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of assessment year 1982-83:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction u/s.80M of the I.T. Act without taking into account the deduction u/s.80K of the Act ?" 2.�We have heard Mr RK Patel learned counsel for the assessee and Mr BB Naik learned counsel for the revenue. 3.�Our attention is invited to the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Sarabhai & Sons (1995) 211 ITR 20 and also to the decision dated 11-1-2001 in Income Tax Reference No. 15 of 1988 wherein this Court has held that in computing deductions allowable under sub-section (1) of section 80M, the net dividend income should be reduced by the deduction allowable to the assessee under section 80K, as provided in sub-section (2) of section 80M. �Following the aforesaid decision, our answer to the question is in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. 4.�The Reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs. �����(M.S. Shah,J) �����(D.A. Mehta,J) zgs/-