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

2000 Supreme(SC) 2203

S.P.BHARUCHA, Y.K.SABHARWAL
Commissioner of Income Tax – Appellant
Versus
Ravaban B. Mistry – Respondent


ORDER :

1. The High Court answered the following question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, following its judgment in Dinubhai Ishvarlal Patel vs. K.D. Dixit, ITO, (1979) 118 ITR 122 (Guj). The question reads thus:

    “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount coming to the share of the husband of the assessee, in a representative capacity as the karta of the Hindu undivided family in the firm of Morvi Time Company was not liable to be included in the income of the assessee under the provisions of Section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”

2. The question is now covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Constitution Bench of this court in Commissioner Income Tax vs. Om Prakash, (1999) 238 ITR 1044. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

3. 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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top