Kiranbhai R. Patel v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 4 of 1988 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE Sd/- and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- ============================================================ 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 @ KIRANBHAI R. PATEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR RK PATEL WITH MR.B.D.KARIA for Applicant No. 1 MR B.B.NAYAK FOR MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 28/06/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE) 1�At the instance of the assessee, the following question has been referred to this Court for its opinion by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench "C" under the provisions of section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to claim interest of Rs.52,374/- u/s.37, 80V, 57 or Sec.67 of the I.T.Act,1961?" 2.�We have heard learned Advocate Mr.R.K.Patel for the applicant-assessee and learned Advocate Mr.B.B.Nayak, for the Revenue. the applicant-assessee and learned Advocate Mr.B.B.Nayak, 3.�Learned Advocates have fairly submitted that a similar question of law was referred to this Court at the instance of the assessee in I.T.R.No.3 of 1988 and this Court had answered the question referred to in I.T.R.No.3 of 1988 in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 4.�In view of the fact that an identical question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, we also answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 5.�The Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. ���Sd/-���Sd/- ��(A.R.Dave, J)��(D.A.Mehta,J) m.m.bhatt