Income Tax Reference No. 62 of 1993 · Gujarat High Court · 2005
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. As can be seen from the impugned order of Tribunal, which is challenged, the Tribunal has followed its own order for Assessment Year 1981-82 without assigning any independent reasons. In these circumstances, for the reasons stated in judgment rendered by this Court today in…
Judgment
======================================================= CORAM :HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI Date : 06/07/2005 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
1. Following question has been referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C' under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the instance Commissioner of Income Tax.
1. The Assessment Year is 1982-83. The only issue involved is whether the assessee was entitled to renewal of registration. It is common ground between the parties that the facts obtaining in this year are identical to those obtaining in Assessment Year 1981-82 in assessee's own case, and hence, it is not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.
As can be seen from the impugned order of Tribunal, which is challenged, the Tribunal has followed its own order for Assessment Year 1981-82 without assigning any independent reasons. In these circumstances, for the reasons stated in judgment rendered by this Court today in Income Tax Reference No.173/1989, the question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
1. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.A.MEHTA, J.) /patil
(H.N.DEVANI, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 256(2).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 06 Jul 2005. The bench was D A MEHTA, H N DEVANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.