Parikh Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. Cit

Parikh Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs Cit

Type Court Judgment Court Gujarat Decided Jul 05, 2002

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/748200

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/748200
Court: Gujarat High Court
Decided On: Jul 05, 2002
Case Number: IT Reference No. 168 of 1988 5 July 2002
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

Counsels: S.N. Divetia, for the Assessee B.B. Naik, for the Revenue In the Gujarat High Court M.S. Shah & K.A. Puj, JJ. -

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parikh Enterprises (P) Ltd.

Advocate S.N. Divetia, <i>for the Assessee </i>B.B. Naik, <i>for the Revenue </i>

Respondent

Cit

Legal References

Reported In: [2002]124TAXMAN468(Guj)

Excerpt

counsels: s.n. divetia, for the assessee b.b. naik, for the revenue in the gujarat high court m.s. shah & k.a. puj, jj. - .....the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of interest of rs. 20,838 in respect of unit no. i under section 40a(8) of the income tax act, 1961 ?'2. the assessment year involved is 1982-83. the income tax officer has disallowed the interest under section 40a(8) of the income tax act, 1961. being aggrieved by the said decision, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the commissioner (appeals) who has confirmed the said disallowance and the assessee has preferred the second appeal against the order of the commissioner (appeals) confirming the disallowance of interest made by the income tax officer.3. heard mr. s.n. divetia, the learned advocate appearing for the assessee and mr. b.b. naik, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.4. at the time of hearing of this reference, our attention is drawn to the decision of this court in the case of cit v. nayjivan roller & pules mills : [2001]251itr661(guj) wherein this court has discussed in detail the provisions contained in section 40a(8) and has also considered the decisions of the bombay, madras and madhya pradesh high courts.while agreeing with the view of the bombay and madras high courts and dissenting from the view taken by the madhya pradesh high court, this court has held that any interest paid on any money received by the company other than a banking company or a financial company which does not fall in any of the exceptions contained in clauses (i) to (viii) of explanation (b) to section 40a(8) and its deduction, which is an allowable expenditure, is governed by section 40a(8) during its operation.5. since the issue raised in the present reference is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the above case, we are of the view that the tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of interest of rs. 20,838 under section 40a(8) in.....

Full Judgment

K.A. Puj, J.

At the instance of the assessee, the following question of law is referred for the opinion of this court :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs. 20,838 in respect of unit No. I under section 40A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?'

2. The assessment year involved is 1982-83. The Income Tax Officer has disallowed the interest under section 40A(8) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who has confirmed the said disallowance and the assessee has preferred the second appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the disallowance of interest made by the Income Tax Officer.

3. Heard Mr. S.N. Divetia, the learned advocate appearing for the assessee and Mr. B.B. Naik, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.

4. At the time of hearing of this reference, our attention is drawn to the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Nayjivan Roller & Pules Mills : [2001]251ITR661(Guj) wherein this court has discussed in detail the provisions contained in section 40A(8) and has also considered the decisions of the Bombay, Madras and Madhya Pradesh High Courts.

While agreeing with the view of the Bombay and Madras High Courts and dissenting from the view taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, this court has held that any interest paid on any money received by the company other than a banking company or a financial company which does not fall in any of the exceptions contained in clauses (i) to (viii) of Explanation (b) to section 40A(8) and its deduction, which is an allowable expenditure, is governed by section 40A(8) during its operation.

5. Since the issue raised in the present reference is squarely covered by the decision of this court in the above case, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs. 20,838 under section 40A(8) in respect of unit No. 1.

We, therefore, answer this question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

6. The reference is, accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Gujarat · 2002 Same Parties Parikh Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs Cit Same Subject Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation