1998 PLP 2678 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus K.T. DOCTOR
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2678 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 1230 I T R 744 |
| Bench Members | B. P. Jeevan Reddy and K. S. Paripoornan, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus K.T. DOCTOR |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2678 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2678 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 1230 I T R 744 bench comprising: B. P. Jeevan Reddy and K. S. Paripoornan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2678 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus K.T. DOCTOR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated January 9, 1980, of the Gujarat High Court in I.T.R. No.269 of 1978).
Supreme Court finding that plea regarding theory of device not raised in order passed by Tribunal or in judgment of High Court
Supreme Court cannot examine such plea
Appeal filed by Department dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department against the judgment of the High Court, holding that it was not possible to examine the theory of device since there was no discussion about the plea of device in the order passed by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the assessee and even in the judgment of the High Court, and hence this aspect was not dealt with. K.T. Doctor v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 501 affirmed.
Judgment & Decree
(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated January 9, 1980, of the Gujarat High Court in I.T.R. No.269 of 1978).
Supreme Court finding that plea regarding theory of device not raised in order passed by Tribunal or in judgment of High Court
Supreme Court cannot examine such plea
Appeal filed by Department dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Department against the judgment of the High Court, holding that it was not possible to examine the theory of device since there was no discussion about the plea of device in the order passed by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the assessee and even in the judgment of the High Court, and hence this aspect was not dealt with. K.T. Doctor v. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 501 affirmed. We find that there is no discussion about the plea of device in the judgment of the Tribunal, though, it is true, that the appeals before the Tribunal were by the assessee. We also find that even in the judgment of the High Court, this aspect does not seem to have been argued or dealt with. In the circumstances, it is not possible for. us to examine the theory of device. These appeals are dismissed accordingly. No costs. M.B.A./1829/FC Appeals dismissed.