C.I.T. versus B.M. KAMOTIA (INDIA)

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

C.I.T. v. B.M. Kamotia (India) - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 43 of 1987 [2004] RD-AH 1285 (2 November 2004)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.37

I.T.R No.43of 1987

Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Kanpur

vs.

Shri B.M.Kanodia (Ind.) Kanpur.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following questions of law under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act, for opinion to this Court:

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in holding that what was the individual property of the respondent to begin with has been converted by him into that of his H.U.F. By his declaration made in the income-tax and wealth-tax returns filed for the assessment years 1958-59 to 1970-71 and accepted by the revenue.

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee had become partner in the partnership firm evidenced by the partnership deed dated 20.12.1956 in his individual capacity and not representing his smaller H.U.F.?"

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present Reference are as follows:-

We have heard Sri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Sri R.S.Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee.

We find that identical questions came up for consideration before this Court in Income Tax Reference No. 276 of 1981 reported in [(1999) UPTC 780] in respect of another assessee, Sri D.P.Kanodia of the same Group in which this Court while dealing with the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. D.P.Kanodia [(1992) 195 ITR 557]  answered the similar questions in favour of the assessee.

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this Court, we answer the above questions referred to us in the affirmative i.e. In favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.

2.11.2004

mz

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.