2001 PLP 1749 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus S.R. RATHI
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1749 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 241 I T R 190 |
| Bench Members | B.A. Khan and Shambhoo Singh, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus S.R. RATHI |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1749 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1749 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 241 I T R 190 bench comprising: B.A. Khan and Shambhoo Singh, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1749 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus S.R. RATHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
ITA No. 16 of High Court
Existence of substantial question of law
Tribunal finding that assessee was fifty-eight years of age and was entitled to exemption under Ss.10(10A)and 10(10AA)
Appeal to High Court was not maintainable
Indian Income tax Act, 1961, S.260A. Held, dismissing the appeal, that the newly‑added section 260A of the Income Tax Act. 1961, provides for an appeal only where the matter involves a substantial question of law. In the instant case, the assessee had claimed exemption under clauses (l0A) and (l0AA) of section
10. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter found that the assessee had attained fifty‑eight years on September 6, 1988, entitling him to retiremental benefits and that the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) had correctly decided the matter. On the second issue, if found on facts that deduction of Rs.1,46,000 was also justified. The issues raised were factual in nature and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Pawnekar for the Commissioner. The assessee was President of Shree Synthetics Ltd., from August 1, 1970, to September 6, 1988. He, however, became an Executive Director of the company from September 7, 1988. It seems that he received gratuity and leave encashment and for that he claimed deduction of Rs.93,780 under clauses (10A) and (10AA) of section 10 of the income Tax Act, 1961. His claim was negatived by the Assessing Officer. On appeal the Commissioner of Income‑taut (Appeals) upheld the assessee's claim and directed the Assessing Officer to scrutinise the claim of deduction per law and allow the same in the computation of total income. The Revenue felt dissatisfied and took appeal, to the Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal on consideration of the matter found that the assessee had attained 58 years on September 6, 1988, entitling him to retiremental benefits and that the Commissioner of Income‑tax (Appeals) had correctly decided the matter. On the second issue, it found on the facts that deduction of Rs.1,46,000 was also justified. The Revenue is in appeal against this and its counsel Shri Pawnekar submitted that the forums below had not correctly applied the provisions of section 10 of the Act. Heared learned counsel and examined the orders passed by the forums below and in our view the issues raised are factual in nature and do not give rise to any substantial question of law warranting entertaining of an appeal under the newly added section 260A of the Income‑tax Act which provides for an appeal only where the matter involves a substantial question of law. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. M.B.A./570/FC Appeal dismissed.