PTD 2002

2002 PLP 1094 (PTD)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus STELLER INVESTMENT LTD.

Jurisdiction / Court
261 I T R 263
Decided Date
Civil Appeal No. 7968 of 1996 decided on 20th July, 2000.
Honorable Judges
S. P. Bharucha and Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 1094 (PTD)
Forum / Court 261 I T R 263
Bench Members S. P. Bharucha and Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ
Parties COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus STELLER INVESTMENT LTD.
Primary Law Income-tax
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1094 (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1094 (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the 261 I T R 263 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha and Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1094 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus STELLER INVESTMENT LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Income-tax

Representation

  • Harish N. Salve, Solicitor-General of India (Nikhil Sakhardande and Mrs. Sushma Suri, advocates with him) for Appellant.
  • M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Vinai Vasih, B.V. Desai and Santosh K. Aggarwal Advocates with him) for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 16, 1991, of the Delhi High Court in I.T.C. No. 164 of 1990).

Reference

Company

Subscribed capital

Increase

Tribunal finding not a device for converting black money into white with the help of investment company

No question of law arises

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2). From the decision of the High Court (see (1991) 192 ITR 287) declining to call for a reference from the decision of the Appellate Tribunal that the increase in subscribed capital of the respondent company could not be a device of converting black money into white with the help of formation of an investment company, on the ground that, even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased capital were not genuine, under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income, an appeal was taken by the Department to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that the Tribunal had come to a conclusion on facts and no interference was called for. CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd (1991) 192 ITR 287 affirmed.

Judgment & Decree

(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 16, 1991, of the Delhi High Court in I.T.C. No. 164 of 1990).

Reference

Company

Subscribed capital

Increase

Tribunal finding not a device for converting black money into white with the help of investment company

No question of law arises

Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.256(2). From the decision of the High Court (see (1991) 192 ITR 287) declining to call for a reference from the decision of the Appellate Tribunal that the increase in subscribed capital of the respondent company could not be a device of converting black money into white with the help of formation of an investment company, on the ground that, even if it be assumed that the subscribers to the increased capital were not genuine, under no circumstances could the amount of share capital be regarded as undisclosed income, an appeal was taken by the Department to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal holding that the Tribunal had come to a conclusion on facts and no interference was called for. CIT v. Stellar Investment Ltd (1991) 192 ITR 287 affirmed. Harish N. Salve, Solicitor-General of India (Nikhil Sakhardande and Mrs. Sushma Suri, advocates with him) for Appellant. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Vinai Vasih, B.V. Desai and Santosh K. Aggarwal Advocates with him) for Respondent. We have read the question which the High Court answered against the Revenue. We are in agreement with the High Court. Plainly, the Tribunal came to a conclusion on facts and no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. M.B.A./1078/FC Appeal dismissed.