Cit vs. M.M.T.C.

Cit vs M.M.T.C.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 25, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710329

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/710329
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Sep 25, 2001
Case Number: Surtax Reference No. 2 of 1987 25 September 2001
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

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

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate R.C. Pandey and; Ms. Prem Lata Bansal,;for the Applicant

Respondent

M.M.T.C.

Legal References

Reported In: [2001]120TAXMAN802(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court arijit pasayat, cj. & d.k. jain, j - orderheard.2. at the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 read with section 18 of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964:'whether the tribunal has been in error in upholding the commissioner (appeals)'s order directing the surtax officer to treat the provision of staff gratuity amounting to rs. 60,00,279 as a reserve for the purpose of computing capital to determine surtax liability in respect of assessment year 1974-75 ?'instead of answering the question referred, in our view, it would be appropriate if the tribunal re-hears the matter, keeping in view the guidelines indicated by the apex court in cit v. jyoti ltd. : [1996]219itr388(sc) 3. reference is, accordingly, disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Heard.

2. At the instance of the revenue, the following question has been referred for opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with section 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964:

'Whether the Tribunal has been in error in upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order directing the Surtax Officer to treat the provision of staff gratuity amounting to Rs. 60,00,279 as a reserve for the purpose of computing capital to determine surtax liability in respect of assessment year 1974-75 ?'

Instead of answering the question referred, in our view, it would be appropriate if the Tribunal re-hears the matter, keeping in view the guidelines indicated by the Apex Court in CIT v. Jyoti Ltd. : [1996]219ITR388(SC)

3. Reference is, accordingly, disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Cit vs M.M.T.C. Same Subject Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation