2001 PLP 2441 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus Smt. RAVABAN B. MISTRY
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2441 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 184 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus Smt. RAVABAN B. MISTRY |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2441 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2441 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 184 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2441 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus Smt. RAVABAN B. MISTRY). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ranbir Chandra., S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. .
- Raj Kumar Mehta and Khwariakpam Nobin Singh, Advocates for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated November 26, 1987, of the Gujarat High Court in I. T. R. No. 19 of 1986).
Inclusions in total income
Income of spouse of assessee from firm
Husband of assessee partner in a firm in a representative capacity as Karta of HUF
Share income of husband of assessee from firm was not includible in total income of assessee
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.64. Against the judgment of the High Court holding that the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount coming to the share of the husband of the assessee, in a representative capacity as the Karta of the Hindu undivided family in a firm was not liable to be included in the income of the assessee under the provisions of section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Department preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. CIT v. Shri Om Prakash (1999) 238 ITR 1044 (SC) fol. Dinubhai Ishavarlal Patel v. K.D. Dixit; ITO (1979) 118 ITR 122 (Guj.) ref.
Judgment & Decree
Against the judgment of the High Court holding that the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount coming to the share of the husband of the assessee, in a representative capacity as the Karta of the Hindu undivided family in a firm was not liable to be included in the income of the assessee under the provisions of section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Department preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. CIT v. Shri Om Prakash (1999) 238 ITR 1044 (SC) fol. Dinubhai Ishavarlal Patel v. K.D. Dixit; ITO (1979) 118 ITR 122 (Guj.) ref. Ranbir Chandra., S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. . Raj Kumar Mehta and Khwariakpam Nobin Singh, Advocates for Respondents. The High Court answered the following question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, following its judgment in Dinubhai Ishvarlal Patel v. K.D. Dixit, ITO (1979) 118 ITR 122 (Guj). The question reads thus: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount coming to the share of the husband of the assessee, in a representative capacity as the karta of the Hindu undivided family in the firm of Morvi Time Company was not liable to be included in the income of the assessee under the provisions of section 64 of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" The question is now covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in CIT v. Shri Om Prakash (1999) 238 ITR 1044. The appeal is; therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. M.B.A./945/FC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.