Mihir Textiles Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax
High Court
02 Dec 2004 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Mihir Textiles Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax
Date of order
02 Dec 2004
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Mihir Textiles Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, the High Court (2004) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- MIHIR TEXTILES LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:...
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 207 of 1991
For Approval and Signature:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA��Sd/-
and
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI��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 concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIHIR TEXTILES LTD
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 207 of 1991
NOTICE SERVED for Petitioner No. 1
MS MAUNA M BHATT for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
and
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date of decision: 02/12/2004
ORAL JUDGEMENT
(Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
1.�The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench
'C' has raised and referred the following questions of law out of reference applications made by both the assessee and the revenue.
2.�The following questions have been referred at the
instance of the assessee :-
�"At the instance of the assessee :
�1.�R.A. No.1089/Ahd/90
�(i) Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Appellate
Tribunal was right in law in holding that
the disallowance is required to be made
u/s.40(c) out of the remuneration paid to
the Managing Director notwithstanding the
fact that the same was reasonable having
regard to the business requirements of
the company ?
�(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
was right in law in holding that the
commission paid to the Managing Director
was required to be included while
computing the disallowance u/s.40(c)?
�(iii) Whether, on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal
was right in law in holding that the
expenditure incurred in relation to issue
of bonus shares was not allowable as a
business expenditure ?
��R.A. No.1090/Ahd/90
�(i) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Appellate
Tribunal was right in holding that for
the purpose of considering the
disallowance u/s.40(c) the perquisite in
respect of the accommodation given by the
assessee to its Managing Director was
includible on the basis of the actual
expenditure incurred and not in
accordance with the I.T. Rules, 1962 ?
�(iv) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Appellate
Tribunal was right in law in holding that
the liability in respect of the interest
payment on the amount withdrawn from the
Court cannot be considered to have
accrued until the final order was passed
by the Honourable High Court in the month
of April, 1984 as such interest was
payable only in the event of Union of
India succeeds in the said appeal before
the High Court "
3.�Though the reference is made at the instance of the assessee, none is present on behalf of the applicant assessee. In the circumstances, the questions are left
unanswered.
4.�The following questions have been referred at the instance of the revenue :-
�"At the instance of the Revenue :
�RA No.1132/Ahd/90
� "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right
in law and on facts in deleting the
disallowance of Rs.24,000/- made by the
Income-tax Officer invoking the
provisions of section 37(4) in respect of
rent ?"
�R.A. No.1133/Ahd/90
accrued until the final order was passed
by the Honourable High Court in the month
of April, 1984 as such interest was
payable only in the event of Union of
India succeeds in the said appeal before
the High Court "
3.�Though the reference is made at the instance of the assessee, none is present on behalf of the applicant assessee. In the circumstances, the questions are left
unanswered.
4.�The following questions have been referred at the instance of the revenue :-
�"At the instance of the Revenue :
�RA No.1132/Ahd/90
� "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right
in law and on facts in deleting the
disallowance of Rs.24,000/- made by the
Income-tax Officer invoking the
provisions of section 37(4) in respect of
rent ?"
�R.A. No.1133/Ahd/90
�(i) Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right
in law and on facts in directing the
Income-tax officer to allow technical
service fees of Rs.57,700/- paid to
Mettur Beardshell Ltd. treating it as
revenue expenditure ?
�(ii) Whether, the payments on account of
medical benefits to the Managing Director
and personal accident insurance premium
were liable to be included while
calculating the disallowance
u/s.40(c)/40A(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961
and whether the Tribunal was right in
directing that the value of perquisites
to determine under the I.T. Rules
instead of actual expenditure incurred on
providing the perquisites in determining
the remuneration u/s.40A(5)/40(c) of the
I.T. Act ?"
5.�Ms.Mauna M. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel
appearing on behalf of the applicant - revenue has very fairly stated that all the aforesaid questions stand answered against the revenue by a decision of this Court
in assessee's own case.
6.�In light of the aforesaid statement, it is not
necessary to narrate the facts and set out the
contentions in detail. For the reasons stated in
assessee's own case reported in 256 ITR 528, all the
three questions, referred at the instance of the revenue,
are answered in favour of the assessee and against the
revenue.
7.�The Reference stands disposed of accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
����Sd/-��Sd/-
���[ D.A.MEHTA,J ] [ H.N.DEVANI,J ]
* * *
'Bhavesh'
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.