Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.I.T. versus RAM BHORSAY

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.I.T. v. Ram Bhorsay - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 88 of 1985 [2004] RD-AH 645 (26 August 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

Income Tax Reference No.88 of 1985

Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut v. Shri Ram Bharosey, Muzaffarnagar.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble K.N.Ojha, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has referred the following question of law under Section 246(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Act,  for opinion to this Court:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the A.A.C. deleting the share income in the firm  Civil Engineers & Co.?"

The reference relates to the Assessment Years 1976-77.  

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

The respondent is an individual who was deriving income from share in Civil Engineering & Co. No.11 According to the respondent, there was a partial partition of the H.U.F. known as M/s.Atma Ram & sons.  The partial partition had not been accepted by the department.  However, in the earlier year i.e. Assessment Year 1976-77 the Tribunal had accepted the claim of the respondent that it was possible to have group partition in a H.U.F.    This Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut v. M/s. Atma Ram and Sons, Muzaffarnagar, 1999 U.P.T.C.636 had upheld the order of the Tribunal recognizing the partial partition with effect from 2nd April, 1974.  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner had accepted the claim made by the respondent and had excluded the share income in the firm Civil Engineering & Co. from the hand of the respondent-assessee.  The Tribunal has upheld the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.  In view of the fact that the partial partition stands recognized , there is no error in the order of the Tribunal in excluding the share income of the firm Civil Engineering & Co. from the hands of the respondent-assessee.

In view of the foregoing discussion, we answer the question referred to us in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.  Since nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee there shall be no order as to costs.

26.8.2004

mt


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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.