Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals , but without any success.
The Assessing Officer negatived the claim of the assessee that the said amount should be treated as a capital receipt.
The assessee carried the matter further in appeal to the Tribunal.
Relying on the ratio of the decisions of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur Vs.
Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made on this account.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Calcutta3, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the said amount companyld number be treated as a revenue receipt.
Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji and Others2 and Kettlewell Bullen and Co. Ltd. Vs.
Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal, as stated above, at the instance of the Revenue, the Tribunal referred the afore noted questions of law for the opinion of the High Court.
The reference having been answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, the Revenue is before us in this appeal.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has answered the following questions, referred to it by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad for short the Tribunal under Section 256 1 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act , in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
K. JAIN, J. This appeal, by special leave, at the instance of the Revenue is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th June, 2001 delivered by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Income Tax Reference No.44 of 1986.
