SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 1677

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Suhas, C. Sen, Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPELLANT
Versus
S. R. PATTON, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 307 of 1993,
decided on December 16, 1997.

The court upheld the finding of the Tribunal as a pure question of fact, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Headnote:

Salary Payment - Taxation - The court held that the salary of the assessee was paid by the foreign company M/s Davy Powerage Inc. and not by FACT, based on the finding of the Tribunal. This influenced the court's decision in favor of the assessee.

Fact of the Case:

The Tribunal found that the salary of the assessee was not paid by FACT but by the foreign company M/s Davy Powerage Inc.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the finding of the Tribunal, stating that it was a pure question of fact and had not been challenged on the ground of perversity. The appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee.

Issues: The main issue was whether the salary of the assessee was paid by FACT or by the foreign company M/s Davy Powerage Inc.

Ratio Decidendi: The finding of the Tribunal regarding the payment of the salary was upheld by the court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.

ORDER

1. The basic question in this case is :

"(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the salary of the assessee was not paid by FACT but by the foreign company M/s Davy Powerage Inc. ?"

2. This is a pure question of fact. The finding of the Tribunal has not been challenged on the ground of perversity. The finding will have to be taken as correct. Therefore, the answer to this question must be in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

3. In view of our answer to Question 1, the other questions raised in this case need not be answered.

4. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top