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. Instrumentation Ltd.

Cit vs instrumentation Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Gujarat Decided Oct 12, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/748974

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
Gujarat High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Ref. No. 6 of 1986 12th October 2001
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

Counsels: J.K. Singhi, for the Revenue Anant Kasliwal, for the Assessee Head Note: INCOME TAX Reference--QUESTION OF LAWSimilar application allowed in earlier assessment years Catch Note: Question relates to transfer of amount to sales contingency provision by assessee and deduction thereof from total computation ...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate J.K. Singhi, <i>for the Revenue</i> Anant Kasliwal, <i>for the Assessee</i>

Respondent

instrumentation Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)173CTR(Guj)441

Excerpt

.....relating to transfer of amount to sales contingency provision and deduction thereof, from the total computation of income, therefore, reference application on similar ground should be allowed and tribunal was directed to refer the question under section 256(2). held: in view of decision in cit v. instrumentation ltd. (1987) 167 itr 354 (raj), tribunal was directed to refer the case under section 256(2). case law analysis: cit v. instrumentation ltd. (1987) 167 itr 354 (raj) applied. application: not to current assessment year. decision: in favour of revenue. income tax act 1961 s.256(2) in the rajasthan high court jaipur bench dr. a.r. lakshamanan, c.j. & rajesh balia, j. - - following the aforesaid decision for the earlier years, the tribunal has made the same order for the assessment year 1978-79. the application under section 256(1) of the act for making a reference to this court of the aforesaid question has been rejected on the ground that no question of law arises out of its order dated 28-9-1984 vide its order dated 22-4-1985. 2. we are informed by both the learned counsel that for earlier assessment orders in the like circumstances an application under section 256(2) of the act was made before this court, which has since been decided in favour of the revenue and the tribunal has been directed to refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion.rajesh balia, j.this application under section 256(2) of the income tax act, 1961, has been made at the instance of the commissioner for stating the case and referring the following question of law arising out of its appellate order dated 28-9-1984.'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in directing the income tax officer to follow the procedure adopted in 1974-75 and 1975-76 on the point of deduction of sales contingency provision and then determine the amount to be allowed ?'the question relates to the transfer of amount to the sales contingency provision by the respondent-assessee and deduction thereof from the total computation of income. for the earlier assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the tribunal laid down certain procedure to be adopted and determined the amount to be deducted from the computation of taxable income of the assessee. following the aforesaid decision for the earlier years, the tribunal has made the same order for the assessment year 1978-79. the application under section 256(1) of the act for making a reference to this court of the aforesaid question has been rejected on the ground that no question of law arises out of its order dated 28-9-1984 vide its order dated 22-4-1985.2. we are informed by both the learned counsel that for earlier assessment orders in the like circumstances an application under section 256(2) of the act was made before this court, which has since been decided in favour of the revenue and the tribunal has been directed to refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. that decision has been rendered by this court in cit v. instrumentation ltd. (1987) 167 itr 354 .accordingly, we allow this application and direct the appellate tribunal, jaipur, to state the case and refer the question suggested by the commissioner, jaipur, to this court for its opinion.there will be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

Rajesh Balia, J.

This application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been made at the instance of the Commissioner for stating the case and referring the following question of law arising out of its appellate order dated 28-9-1984.

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income Tax Officer to follow the procedure adopted in 1974-75 and 1975-76 on the point of deduction of sales contingency provision and then determine the amount to be allowed ?'

The question relates to the transfer of amount to the sales contingency provision by the respondent-assessee and deduction thereof from the total computation of income. For the earlier assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, the Tribunal laid down certain procedure to be adopted and determined the amount to be deducted from the computation of taxable income of the assessee. Following the aforesaid decision for the earlier years, the Tribunal has made the same order for the assessment year 1978-79. The application under section 256(1) of the Act for making a reference to this court of the aforesaid question has been rejected on the ground that no question of law arises out of its order dated 28-9-1984 vide its order dated 22-4-1985.

2. We are informed by both the learned counsel that for earlier assessment orders in the like circumstances an application under section 256(2) of the Act was made before this court, which has since been decided in favour of the revenue and the Tribunal has been directed to refer the aforesaid question of law to this court for its opinion. That decision has been rendered by this court in CIT v. Instrumentation Ltd. (1987) 167 ITR 354 .

Accordingly, we allow this application and direct the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, to state the case and refer the question suggested by the Commissioner, Jaipur, to this court for its opinion.

There will be no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial