2002 PLP 1118 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus LAMI WINE MERCHANTS
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1118 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 251 I T R 882 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus LAMI WINE MERCHANTS |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1118 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1118 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 251 I T R 882 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1118 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus LAMI WINE MERCHANTS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. Ganesh, Rajiv Nanda, S.K. Dwivedi, T.C. Sharma, S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant.
- L. Nageswara Rao, Senior Advocate (S.K. Verma and V.G. Pragasam, Advocates with him) for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, dated December 18, 1989, in I.T.C. No. 176 of 1989 and, dated December 26, 1989 in I.T.C. Nos.233, 234, 237, 239 and 240 of 1989).
Firm formed in contravention of liquor rules
Whether entitled to registration
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss.185 & 256
A. P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970, Rr.38 &
39. The question whether, in spite of contravention of rules 38 and 39 of the A. P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of registration under section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a question of law. The Supreme Court accordingly directed the Appellate Tribunal to state a case to the High Court and refer the question of law for opinion. Bhiari Lal Jaiswal v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 746 (SC) and CIT v. Nall' Venkataramana (1984) 145 ITR 759 (AP) ref.
Judgment & Decree
The question whether, in spite of contravention of rules 38 and 39 of the A. P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of registration under section 185 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is a question of law. The Supreme Court accordingly directed the Appellate Tribunal to state a case to the High Court and refer the question of law for opinion. Bhiari Lal Jaiswal v. CIT (1996) 217 ITR 746 (SC) and CIT v. Nall' Venkataramana (1984) 145 ITR 759 (AP) ref. S. Ganesh, Rajiv Nanda, S.K. Dwivedi, T.C. Sharma, S.W.A. Quadri and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates for Appellant. L. Nageswara Rao, Senior Advocate (S.K. Verma and V.G. Pragasam, Advocates with him) for Respondent. The High Court declined to call for a reference of the following question: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefits of registration in spite of contravention of rules 38 and 39 of the A.P. Foreign Liquor and Indian Liquor Rules, 1970?" It did so because of an earlier decision CIT v. Nalli Venkataramana (1984) 145 ITR 759 (AP). The Revenue is, therefore, appeal by special leave. The decision of the High Court in the case of Nalli Venkataramana (1984) 145 ITR 759 (AP) was considered by this Court in Bihari Lal Jaiswal v. CIT (1996)217 ITR 746 and was found unacceptable. It is, therefore, clear that a question of law does arise which requires the consideration of the High Court, in the light of the judgment in the case of Bihari Lal Jaiswal (1996) 217 ITR
746. The civil appeals are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The Tribunal shall refer to the High Court the question afore stated, having drawn up a statement of case. No order as to costs. M.B.A31087/FC Appeals allowed.