Taxap/465/1999 Of Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Sayaji Iron Workd(Contract)Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 465 of 1999 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Sd/- HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI Sd/- ========================================================= 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 ?of the judgment ? Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the of law as to the interpretation of the 4constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5[Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ]?? ========================================================= ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Appellant(s)Versus SAYAJI IRON WORKD(CONTRACT)LTD - Opponent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :MR KM PARIKHfor Appellant(s) : 1,NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM :HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTAand HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI Date : 11/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1The Appeal has been admitted vide order dated 6.12.2000 and the following substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of section 40A(8) of the Income Tax Act are not applicable in respect of interest paid to directors, share holders and their relatives on their current accounts?” 2Though served none appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee. Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant. It is pointed out that in Income Tax Reference No. 81 of 1991 and cognate matters vide common judgment dated 16.10.2001 rendered between the same parties, this Court has answered identically worded question in favour of Revenue by referring to earlier decisions. 3In light of the fact that the issue stands concluded by the earlier judgments of this Court, it is not necessary to set out facts and contentions in detail. For the reasons stated in judgment dated 16.10.2001 as referred to here-in-before as well as judgment dated 7.11.2001 in ITR No. 274 of 1994, the TAXAP/46519/1999 question as referred to above is answered in the Negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent-assessee. 4The Appeal is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Sd/- (D.A. Mehta, J.) Sd/- (Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.) M.M.BHATT