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. Escorts Ltd.

Cit vs Escorts Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 11, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710343

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. 1 to 4 of 1985 11 September 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

Cit

Advocate R.C. Pandey an; Ajay Jha, for the Revenue; S.K. Aggarwal, for the assesse

Respondent

Escorts Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
[2002]121TAXMAN37(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court arijit pasayat, c.j. & d.k. jain, j. - arijit pasayat, c.j.these four applications involve common questions which have been referred for opinion of this court by the tribunal, delhi bench 'e, under section 18(1) of the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964 read with section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961. the questions read as under :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction allowed under chapter vi-a of the income tax act, 1961 is to be proportionately reduced from the computation of capital for surtax purposes in terms of rule 4 of the second schedule to the surtax act, 1964 ?'2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to deduction at 50 per cent of the total donation made by the assessed which fell within the ambit of section 80g(2) of the income tax act, 1961 for the purpose of rule 1(vii) of the first schedule to the companies (profits) surtax act, 1964 ?'dispute relates to the assessment years 1976-77 to 1979-80.2. we have heard the learned counsels for the parties. on perusal of the orders passed by the authorities and the tribunal, we find that the first question does not arise out of the order of the tribunal. thereforee, we decline to answer the question. so far as the second question, which is essentially a question of law involving no elaborate factual description, is concerned, the decisions in cit v. vazir sultan tobacco co. ltd. : [1988]173itr567(ap) and cit v. echjay industries (p) ltd. : [1995]214itr27(bom) are applicable. we are in agreement with the views expressed in the said cases and, thereforee, we answer the second question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.all the four reference applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

These four applications involve common questions which have been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E, under section 18(1) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 read with section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The questions read as under :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction allowed under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to be proportionately reduced from the computation of capital for surtax purposes in terms of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act, 1964 ?'

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to deduction at 50 per cent of the total donation made by the assessed which fell within the ambit of section 80G(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of rule 1(vii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?'

Dispute relates to the assessment years 1976-77 to 1979-80.

2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. On perusal of the orders passed by the authorities and the Tribunal, we find that the first question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. thereforee, we decline to answer the question. So far as the second question, which is essentially a question of law involving no elaborate factual description, is concerned, the decisions in CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. : [1988]173ITR567(AP) and CIT v. Echjay Industries (P) Ltd. : [1995]214ITR27(Bom) are applicable. We are in agreement with the views expressed in the said cases and, thereforee, we answer the second question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.

All the four reference applications stand disposed of accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial