COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. BHIKHAMAL CHHOTAMAL
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA ============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates, Judge/Judges, Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus BHIKHAMAL CHHOTAMAL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance:
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 202 of 1995 MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA Date of decision: 16/01/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) (cid:9)In this reference at the instance of the Revenue, the following question is referred for our opinion, in respect of the assessment year 1985-86: "Whether, the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow relief under section 80 HH and 80I to the assessee, considering the ship breaking business of the assessee as a manufacturing activity?"
2.(cid:9)We have heard Mr. M.R. Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue. Though served, none appeared on behalf of the respondent - assessee.
3.(cid:9)Our attention is drawn to the decision of another Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Vijay Ship Breaking Corporation, 2003 (261) ITR 113, taking the view that ship breaking activity was not an activity of manufacture or production of any article or thing for the purposes of availing of the benefit of deductions under sections 80HH and 80-I of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. Since the issue raised in the present reference is already decided by this Court against the assessee, we answer the question in the negative i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
4.(cid:9)The reference accordingly stands disposed of. (cid:9) (cid:9)(M.S. Shah, J.) (cid:9) (cid:9)(A.M. Kapadia, J.) (cid:9) (cid:9)--- (karan) (cid:9) (cid:9) (cid:9)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India; Income Tax Act, 1961.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 16 Jan 2004. The bench was M S SHAH, A M KAPADIA.
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.