The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Trustees Of The Princess High Schoolfor Girls Bldg. Fund Trust
High Court
29 Jun 2005 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Trustees Of The Princess High Schoolfor Girls Bldg. Fund Trust
Date of order
29 Jun 2005
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Trustees Of The Princess High Schoolfor Girls Bldg. Fund Trust, the High Court (2005) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICGTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 678of 1987
The Commissioner of Income Tax
... Applicant.
vs.
The Trustees of the Princess High Schoolfor Girls Bldg. Fund Trust ... Respondent
Mr. Ashok Katangale 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,the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee– trust was entitled to exemption under section 11 of theIncome Tax Act , 1961?
2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant revenue. Perusedreference proceedings. reference proceedings.
3. The learned counsel for the revenue fairly drew our attention tothe instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes , Newthe instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes , New
Delhi, 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. CamcoColour Co., reported in ITR Vol. 254 (2002), page 565 ruled that theabove instructions are binding on the Department. Colour Co., reported in ITR Vol. 254 (2002), page 565 ruled that theabove 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 tothis Court for the Assessment Year 1979-80. Accordingly,reference stands returned unanswered with no order as to costs. this Court for the Assessment Year 1979-80. Accordingly,reference stands returned unanswered with no order as to costs.
(A. S. AGUIAR J.)
(V. C. DAGA J. )
-x-
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.