Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Modi Rubber Ltd.

Cit vs Modi Rubber Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 02, 2000
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707638

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Case No. 34 of 1995 2 May 2000
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

In the Delhi High Court Arun Kumar & D.K. Jain, JJ. - - 46 of 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1986-87. Following the said order, we reject this petition as well.

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate Ms. Prem Lata Bansal,for the Revenue;Santosh K. Aggarwal for the assessed

Respondent

Modi Rubber Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
[2001]118TAXMAN79(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court arun kumar & d.k. jain, jj. - - 46 of 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1986-87. following the said order, we reject this petition as well.by this petition under section 256(2) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), the revenue seeks a direction to the tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, said to be arising out of it appeal no. 4802 (del) of 1992, for the opinion of this court :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble tribunal was correct in holding that the direct cost method of valuation adopted by the assessed and upheld by the commissioner (appeals) does not require any interference ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the hon'ble income tax appellate tribuanl was justified in holding that hra should be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 40a(5) and section 40(c) ?'2. the petition pertains to the assessment year 1987-88 for which the relevant accounting period ended on 30-4-1986. at the outset, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessed that reference on a similar question in respect of the assessment year 1985-86 has been declined by this court by order dated 5-3-1998 in itc no. 52 of 1995 and this order has been accepted by the revenue. following the said order, we decline to call for reference on the first question.3. as regards question no. 2, by a separate order passed today we have declined to call for reference on a similar question in itc no. 46 of 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1986-87. following the said order, we reject this petition as well. no costs.

Full Judgment

By this petition under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the revenue seeks a direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions, said to be arising out of IT Appeal No. 4802 (Del) of 1992, for the opinion of this court :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was correct in holding that the direct cost method of valuation adopted by the assessed and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not require any interference ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribuanl was justified in holding that HRA should be excluded for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 40A(5) and section 40(c) ?'

2. The petition pertains to the assessment year 1987-88 for which the relevant accounting period ended on 30-4-1986. At the outset, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessed that reference on a similar question in respect of the assessment year 1985-86 has been declined by this court by order dated 5-3-1998 in ITC No. 52 of 1995 and this order has been accepted by the revenue. Following the said order, we decline to call for reference on the first question.

3. As regards question No. 2, by a separate order passed today we have declined to call for reference on a similar question in ITC No. 46 of 1995, pertaining to the assessment year 1986-87. Following the said order, we reject this petition as well. No costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial