Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. G...

The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Garware Motors & Engineers

High Court 29 Jun 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Garware Motors & Engineers
Date of order
29 Jun 2005
Assessment year(s)
1977-78
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Garware Motors & Engineers, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.

Issue: By this reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act , 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the followingquestions of law for the opinion of this court: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,31,468/- of M/s.Garware Plastics Pat.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICGTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 675of 1987 The Commissioner of Income Tax ... Applicant. vs. M/s. Garware Motors & Engineers ..... Respondent Dr. P. Daniel for Applicant.None for Respondent. CORAM: V. C. DAGA AND A. S. AGUIAR JJ.Date: 29[th] June, 2005. P. C.: 1. By this reference under section 256 (1) of the Income Tax Act , 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the followingquestions of law for the opinion of this court: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.1,31,468/- of M/s.Garware Plastics Pat. Ltd., (amalgamated company)could be set off against the income of M/s. GarwareMotors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., (amalgamating company)for Assessment Year 1977-78?” 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant revenue. Perusedreference proceedings. reference proceedings. 3. The learned counsel for the revenue fairly drew our attention to the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes , NewDelhi, dated 27[th] March, 2000 wherein monetary limit for thedepartment for filing reference to the High Court earlier fixed forRs.50,000/- came to be revised and fresh instructions are issued bythe Board to file reference only in cases where tax effect exceedsRs.2,00,000/-. 4. This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v/s. Camco Colour Co., reported in ITR Vol. 254 (2002), page 565 ruled that theabove instructions are binding on the Department. above instructions are binding on the Department. 5. The above instructions dated 27[th] March, 2000 reflects the policydecision taken by the Board not to raise questions of law where thetax effect is less than the amount prescribed in the instructions with aview to reduce litigation before High Courts and Supreme Court. Thecircular is binding on the Revenue. There is no justification toproceed with the decades old references having negligible tax effect. decision taken by the Board not to raise questions of law where thetax effect is less than the amount prescribed in the instructions with aview to reduce litigation before High Courts and Supreme Court. Thecircular is binding on the Revenue. There is no justification toproceed with the decades old references having negligible tax effect. 6. We, thus, do not think it necessary to answer the reference made to this Court for the Assessment Year 1977-78. Accordingly,reference stands returned unanswered with no order as to costs. reference stands returned unanswered with no order as to costs. (A. S. AGUIAR J.) (V. C. DAGA J. ) -x-
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