Case LawHigh Court › Pavagadh Investments Pvt. Ltd v. Commiss...

Pavagadh Investments Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 16 Oct 2001 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Pavagadh Investments Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
16 Oct 2001
Assessment year(s)
1981-82
Outcome
Other

Case summary

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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

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/-
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan