2001 PLP 2534 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus GORDHANBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2534 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 247 I T R 266 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, R. C. Lahoti and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus GORDHANBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2534 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2534 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 247 I T R 266 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, R. C. Lahoti and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2534 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus GORDHANBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Mrs. Sushma Sari, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
- B. Sen, Senior Advocate for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 22, 1992, of the Gujarat High Court in I. T. As. Nos. 192 and 193 of 1992 ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Firm‑‑‑Business expenditure‑‑‑Disallowance of expenditure‑‑ Interest on deposit‑‑‑Deposit whether made by HUF or individual partner‑‑ Question of fact‑‑‑Supreme Court would not interfere with finding‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961., Ss.40(b) &
256. Held, that it was a question of fact whether the deposit in the firm was made by the Hindu undividual family and not by the individual partner; if it had been made by the Hindu undivided family, the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not apply. The Tribunal was final fact‑finding authority and the Court would not interfere with the Tribunal's conclusion.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Firm‑‑‑Business expenditure‑‑‑Disallowance of expenditure‑‑ Interest on deposit‑‑‑Deposit whether made by HUF or individual partner‑‑ Question of fact‑‑‑Supreme Court would not interfere with finding‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961., Ss.40(b) &
256. Held, that it was a question of fact whether the deposit in the firm was made by the Hindu undividual family and not by the individual partner; if it had been made by the Hindu undivided family, the provisions of section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, would not apply. The Tribunal was final fact‑finding authority and the Court would not interfere with the Tribunal's conclusion. Dr. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (S. Rajappa and Mrs. Sushma Sari, Advocates with him) for Appellant. B. Sen, Senior Advocate for Respondent. The question of law that is said to arise in these appeals reads thus: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, whether the learned Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) was right in holding that the deposit in the firm was made by Gordhanbhai Jethabhai Zaverbhai, Hindu undivided family, and not by the individual partner and so the provisions of section 40(b) would not apply? As we read the question it is a question of fact, namely, whether the deposit in the firm was made by the Hindu undivided family and not by the individual partner; and it is assumed that if it has been made by the Hindu undivided family, the provisions of section 40(b) will not apply. The Tribunal is the final fact‑finding authority and it is not for the Court to interfere with the Tribunal's conclusion. We have read the order, dated December 14, 1999, referring these appeals to a Bench of three learned Judges. We have also noted that Mr. B. Sen has been asked to assist us in the matter. However, we do not think that any decision on the law, as reflected in the order o1 reference, can be‑arrived at. in these appeals. We are grateful to Mr. Sen for having agreed to assist us. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. M.B.A./982/FC Appeals dismissed.