National Company, A Partnership Firm Represented by its Managing Partner Dr. C. V. Ananthasayanam vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(Mad) 939

VINEET KOTHARI, C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
National Company, A Partnership Firm Represented by its Managing Partner Dr. C. V. Ananthasayanam – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :P.H. Arvind Pandian, Senior Advocate Assisted by R. Maheswari, Advocate.
For the Respondent: T.R. Ravikumar, Senior Standing Counsel.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

1. The Assessee has filed T.C.A.No. 365 of 2009 under Section 260-A of the Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 12.12.2008 whereby the Tribunal had allowed the Appeal of the Revenue which had been filed challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI, Chennai, dated 16.03.2007 relevant to the Assessment Year 2004-2005.

2. The Assessee has also filed T.C.A.No. 366 of 2009 under Section 260-A of the Act challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 12.12.2008 whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the cross objections filed by the Assessee relating to the same order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – VI, Chennai dated 16.03.2007 relevant to the Assessment Year 2004-2005.

3. Both the appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies to retirement of partner from partnership business?;

2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in the manner and application of the rule of ejusdem generis to Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?;

3. Whether th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None. The provided case law <00100038614> does not indicate that it has been overruled, reversed, criticized, or otherwise treated as bad law. There is no explicit language or context suggesting its judicial treatment has been negatively affected in subsequent decisions.

[Followed]

No cases in the list explicitly state they are "followed," so none are categorized here.

[Distinguished]

No cases explicitly mention being distinguished from other rulings.

[Criticized or Questioned]

No indications that the case has been criticized or questioned.

[Reversed or Overruled]

The case law list does not contain any language indicating it has been reversed or overruled. Since the only case provided does not show signs of such treatment, it remains unchallenged in this context.

[Uncertain treatment]

The treatment of this case law is unclear based solely on the provided excerpt. There is no information about subsequent judicial treatment or treatment history, so it cannot be definitively categorized beyond its initial statement.

The treatment status of case <00100038614> is ambiguous because the excerpt does not include any references to subsequent judicial treatment, such as whether it has been overruled, distinguished, or criticized. Without additional context or case law commentary, its current legal standing remains uncertain.

**Source :** Commissioner Of Income Tax, A. P. III, hyderabad VS P. LINGAMALLU RAGHUKUMAR - Supreme Court Sunil Siddharthbhai: Kartikeya V. Sarabhai VS Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad: Commissioner Of Income Tax - Supreme Court

2019 Supreme(Mad) 939

VINEET KOTHARI, C.V.KARTHIKEYANNational Company, A Partnership Firm Represented by its Managing Partner Dr. C. V. Ananthasayanam – AppellantVersusAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

Judicial Analysis

VINEET KOTHARI, C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
National Company, A Partnership Firm Represented by its Managing Partner Dr. C. V. Ananthasayanam – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent