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.

Commissioner of Surtax Vs. Gedore Tools (India) (P) Ltd.

Commissioner of Surtax vs Gedore Tools (India) (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 23, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710212

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
Surtax Reference Nos. 2 to 5 of 1978 23 August 2001
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

In the Delhi High Court Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. -

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Surtax

Advocate R.D. Jolly and; Ajay Jha, for the Revenu

Respondent

Gedore Tools (India) (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
[2001]119TAXMAN568(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court arijit pasayat, c.j. & d.k. jain, j. - arijit pasayat, c.j.heard.all the four reference applications involve common question of law and are disposed of by this common order.the dispute relates to assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73. at the instance of the revenue, for the first two years, i.e., 1,969-70 and 1970-71, following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the act), the tribunal, delhi bench a:'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 8(b) of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964 was merely on the basis of change of opinion on the part of the surtax officer and that the surtax officer had no information in his possession in consequence of which he could have reasons to believe that chargeable profits had been the subject of excessive relief under the said act?'whereas for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73, a common question has been referred which reads as follows :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the capital employed for earning the profits entitled to deduction under section 80-i and 80j of the income tax act, 1961 should not be excluded from the computation of capital under the second schedule to the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964?'2. we need not deal with the factual aspects in detail in view of decision of the apex court in ito v. stumpp schuele and somappa (p) ltd. : [1991]187itr108(sc) . thereforee, the common question for the four assessment years is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue. in view of this, it is unnecessary to deal with the first question which is more of academic interest.all the four applications are disposed of.

Full Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

Heard.

All the four reference applications involve common question of law and are disposed of by this common order.

The dispute relates to assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73. At the instance of the revenue, for the first two years, i.e., 1,969-70 and 1970-71, following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Tribunal, Delhi Bench A:

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the reopening of the assessment under section 8(b) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 was merely on the basis of change of opinion on the part of the Surtax Officer and that the Surtax Officer had no information in his possession in consequence of which he could have reasons to believe that chargeable profits had been the subject of excessive relief under the said Act?'

Whereas for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1972-73, a common question has been referred which reads as follows :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the capital employed for earning the profits entitled to deduction under section 80-I and 80J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be excluded from the computation of capital under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964?'

2. We need not deal with the factual aspects in detail in view of decision of the Apex Court in ITO v. Stumpp Schuele and Somappa (P) Ltd. : [1991]187ITR108(SC) . thereforee, the common question for the four assessment years is answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue. In view of this, it is unnecessary to deal with the first question which is more of academic interest.

All the four applications are disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial