In Shatrupa Trust - Applicant(S v. Commissioner Of Income-Tax - Respondent(S, the High Court (2006) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Reference stands disposed of accordingly. m.m.bhatt
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
ITR/276/1995
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 276 of 1995
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
==============================================================
1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed ]to see the judgment ?to see the judgment ?
2To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3[Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy ]of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the 4constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?5[Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ]?
==============================================================
SHATRUPA TRUST - Applicant(s)
VersusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - Respondent(s)
============================================================== Appearance :NOTICE SERVEDfor Applicant(s) : 1,MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1,
==================================================================
CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTAandHONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date : 09/01/2006
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
ITR/276/1995
2/2JUDGMENT
1 Despite service of notice there is no appearance on behalf of the applicant, nor has the applicant filed Paper Book as required by the Rules of this High Court.
2 In these circumstances, the Reference is left
unanswered for want of prosecution. Reference stands disposed of accordingly.
m.m.bhatt
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.