In Pavagadh Investments Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2001) decided the matter.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- PAVAGADH INVESTMENTS PVT.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 177 of 1989
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 -------------------------------------------------------------- PAVAGADH INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
-------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 177 of 1989 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 1981-82:-
"Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in
confirming the penalty of Rs.2148/- levied by the
IT u/s.273(1)(a) 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.�Mr. Patel learned counsel for the assessee
states that in view of the smallness of the amount
involved (Rs.2148/-), the assessee does not wish to press
for this reference.
�In view of the above concession, we decline to
answer the question referred to us in view of the
smallness of the amount involved.
4.�The Reference accordingly stands disposed of with
no order as to costs.
�����(M.S. Shah,J)
�����(D.A. Mehta,J)
zgs/-
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.