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

1993 Supreme(Cal) 393

A.K.SENGUPTA, SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN
MERINOPLY AND CHEMICALS LTD. – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX – Respondent


AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THE two references--one under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both at the instance of the assessee were heard together as both involve one issue relating to the assessability of transport subsidy received by the assessee from the State Government of Assam during the previous years relevant to the three assessment years 1980-81 to 1982-83.

( 2 ) IN this reference petition filed before the Tribunal on the same issue the assessee sought for reference on five questions, all touching the basic issue as aforesaid. The Tribunal, however, thought fit to refer only the first question presumably considering the other questions subsidiary and mere ramifications of the first question. The assessee, however, obtained a rule from this court directing the Tribunal to prepare a statement of case on one more question correlated with the question granted by the Tribunal in its reference under Section 256 (1) of the said Act. In fine, this court is required to answer two questions as follows :"question under Section 256 (1) : whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Transport Subsidy granted




























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