1973 PLP 257 (PTD)
Smt. SANTIMOYEE BOSE AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGAL III
| Citation | 1973 PLP 257 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Calcutta (India) |
| Bench Members | Deb and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ |
| Parties | Smt. SANTIMOYEE BOSE AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGAL III |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 PLP 257 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 PLP 257 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Calcutta (India) bench comprising: Deb and Sabyasachi Mukharji, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 PLP 257 (PTD) (Smt. SANTIMOYEE BOSE AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGAL III). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Some argument was advanced by Mr. B. L. Pal, learned Advocate for the Revenue, to the effect that in fact also the assessees associated inasmuch as by joining in the suit they associated in creating this income. In the view we have taken of the matter we do not think it necessary to consider this aspect of the matter. In the above view of the matter the question referred to us must be answered in the affirmative. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs.
Headnotes / Summary
Income‑tax‑--Association of persons Joint decree for maintenance in favour of assessee and her minor children‑Whether share of each determinate and specific‑Assessment of decretal amount as income of an association of persons‑Whether justified‑Indian Income‑tax Act, 1922, S. 41(1), proviso. In a suit for maintenance filed by the assessee on behalf of herself and her minor sons and daughters against her husband, the Court directed payment of maintenance at certain rates and also arrears of maintenance. The officer, rejecting the contention of the assessee that under the decree the share of each plaintiff was specific and determinate, assessed the decretal amount treating the assessee and her children as an association of persons. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld the assessee as an association of persons. On n reference to the High Court: Held, that, reading the decree as a whole, the maintenance was not given to any of the plaintiffs on the basis of any proportionate share but the plaintiffs were given jointly the right to receive certain sums of money ; the shares of the individual plaintiffs were therefore indeterminate or unknown, and under the proviso to section 41 the assessees could be deemed. to be an association of persons even though they did not associ ate or enter on a joint venture and the assessment of the assessees as an association of persons was right. [Case‑law referred.] S. K. Mitra with S. D. Ghosh for the Assesee. B. L. Pal with N. L. Pal for the Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
DEB, J.
I agree.