2000 PLP 1281 (PTD)
DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) Versus DHARM PRATISTHANAM
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1281 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 234 ITR 842 |
| Bench Members | R. C. Lahoti and C. K. Mahajan, JJ |
| Parties | DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) Versus DHARM PRATISTHANAM |
| Primary Law | (b) Income-tax--, (a) Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1281 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Income-tax--, (a) Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1281 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 234 ITR 842 bench comprising: R. C. Lahoti and C. K. Mahajan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1281 (PTD) (DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTION) Versus DHARM PRATISTHANAM). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- R.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Barisal for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Law applicable
Effect of S.2(24)(ii)(a)
Voluntary contributions whether not taxable notwithstanding the provisions of S.2(24)(ii)(a)
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.2 &
256. Held, that the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that voluntary contributions are not to be taxed as income notwithstanding the provisions of section 2(24)(ii)(a) of the Income Tax .Act, 1961, was a question of law: Held also, that though in the case at hand the issue was not pursued further by filing a reference relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, yet the right of the petitioner to move this Court for the next year of assessment i.e., 1986-87 was not taken away inasmuch as every year's assessment proceedings is an independent proceedings in the eye, of law and the rule of res judicata is not in terms applicable to tax assessment proceedings. CIT v. Chawla (M.) (1989) 177 ITR 299 (Delhi) fol.
Res judicata-Principle not applicable to assessment proceedings.
Judgment & Decree
Held also, that though in the case at hand the issue was not pursued further by filing a reference relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, yet the right of the petitioner to move this Court for the next year of assessment i.e., 1986-87 was not taken away inasmuch as every year's assessment proceedings is an independent proceedings in the eye, of law and the rule of res judicata is not in terms applicable to tax assessment proceedings. CIT v. Chawla (M.) (1989) 177 ITR 299 (Delhi) fol. (b) Income-tax
Res judicata-Principle not applicable to assessment proceedings. R.D. Jolly with Ms. Premlata Barisal for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Arrival of counsel for the respondent was awaited up to 12.25 p.m. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the particulars referred to in the last order are not available with the Department arid, therefore, in terms of the last order, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. Perused the contents of paragraph 7 of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an identical issue is arising for decision in several other matter;' though in the case at hand the issue was not pursued further by filing a reference relevant to the assessment year 1985-86, yet the right of the petitioner to move this Court for the next year of assessment, i.e., 1986-87, is not taken away inasmuch as every year's assessment proceedings is an independent proceedings in the eye of law and the rule of res judicata is not in terms applicable to the tax assessment proceedings. (see CIT v. M. Chawla (1989) 177 ITR 299 (Delhi). As the question which is sought to be referred is a question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal is directed to draw the statement of case and refer the following question for the opinion of the High Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the voluntary contributions are not to be taxed as income notwithstanding the provisions of section 2(24)(ii)(a) of the Act?" No order as to costs. M. B. A. /4047/FC Order accordingly