Gujarat High Court
ITR/64/1992 of DHAULGIRI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX on 17 July 2002
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 64 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 64 of 1992
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
============================================================ 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? @ DHAULGIRI INVESTMENTS PVT. LTDVersus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 64 of 1992 MR RK PATEL for Petitioner No. 1 MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date of decision: 17/07/2002
(Per : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
In this reference at the instance of the assessee, the following question is referred for our opinion in respect of assessment year 1983-84:- assessee, the following question is referred for our "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in coming to the conclusion that short provision for taxation of earlier years is not required to be deducted while computing the distributable income for the purpose of levy of tax u/s.104 of the Act?"
2. We have heard Mr RK Patel, learned counsel for the applicant- assessee and Mr Manish R Bhatt, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the revenue.
the applicant- assessee and Mr Manish R Bhatt, learned
3. Having gone through the order of the Assessing Officer, the appellate order and the Tribunal's order and having regard to the smallness of the amount, we decline to answer the question referred for our opinion.
4. The Reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
���(M.S. Shah,J) (K.A. Puj,J)
zgs/-