Union Ltd. Mehsana - Applicant(S v. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Respondent(S
High Court
10 Mar 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Union Ltd. Mehsana - Applicant(S v. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Respondent(S
Date of order
10 Mar 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Union Ltd. Mehsana - Applicant(S v. Commissioner Of Income Tax - Respondent(S, the High Court (2008) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transfer to reserve fund cannot be treated as a business expenditure and allowed deduction under Sec.
Decision: The reference stands disposed of accordingly.
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.86 of 1996
For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
Sd/-
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Sd/-
===================================================
1[Whether Reporters of Local Papers ]NOmay be allowed to see the judgment ?2[To be referred to the Reporter or ]NOnot ?3[Whether their Lordships wish to see ]NOthe fair copy of the judgment ?Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to 4theinterpretationofthe NOconstitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?5[Whether it is to be circulated to ]NOthe civil judge ?
===================================================
MEHSANA DIST. CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS'
UNION LTD. MEHSANA - Applicant(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - Respondent(s)
===================================================
Appearance :
SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Applicant(s) : 1,MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent(s) : 1,
===================================================
CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 10/03/2008
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
(1)The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad
Bench 'B' has referred the following two
questions under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at the instance of the assessee for Assessment Years 1983-84 to 1986-87:
1.Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount transferred to Reserve Fund Account as per provisions of Sec. 67 of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 was not a diversion of income at source by over-riding title ?the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount transferred to Reserve Fund Account as per provisions of Sec. 67 of Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 was not a diversion of income at source by over-riding title ?
2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transfer to reserve fund cannot be treated as a business expenditure and allowed deduction under Sec. 28/37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the transfer to reserve fund cannot be treated as a business expenditure and allowed deduction under Sec. 28/37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?
(2)It is an admitted position between the parties that the issue raised by the two questions is concluded by a judgment rendered today between the same parties in I.T.R. No.65 of 1997. Hence, for the reasons stated in the judgment of even date rendered in I.T.R. No.65 of 1997, both the questions, at the instance of the
ITR/86/1996
3/3
assessee, are answered in the affirmative i.e.
in favour of the Revenue and against the
assessee. The reference stands disposed of
accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
[ D.A. MEHTA, J ]
Bhavesh*
***
Sd/-
[Z.K. SAIYED, J ]
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.