COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,LUD vs. OM PARKASH MUNJAL

ITR/184/1996HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01034983199607 January 2013Author: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

These are references under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising from separate orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 14.11.1994, concerning Assessment Year 1982-83. The appellant is the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana, and the respondents are Shri Sunil Kant Munjal and Smt. Rekha Munjal. The dispute revolves around the exclusion of a portion of share income from the assessee's total income. The procedural history involves the Tribunal passing orders which are now under challenge by the Revenue before the High Court.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law raised in these references was already decided by this Court in ITR No. 7 of 1989 titled 'The Commissioner of Income Tax (Ludhiana) vs. Sh. Pawan Kant Ludhiana' on 30.08.2004. The Court found that the decision in the Pawan Kant Ludhiana case was in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in that prior judgment, the question of law in the present references was answered in the same manner. The operative direction was to dispose of the references accordingly, implying the Tribunal's order was upheld.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the share income attributable to 36% of the assessee's right, title, and interest of his share income in M/s Munjal Sales Corpn. was to be excluded from the assessee's total income? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the outcome indicates the assessee's position was upheld. Revenue's contention: The Revenue is challenging the Tribunal's decision to exclude the share income. The specific arguments of the Revenue are not detailed in the judgment, but the question posed indicates their disagreement with the Tribunal's finding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

ITR No. 184 & 186 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

1.

ITR No. 184 of 1996 The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant versus Shri Sunil Kant Munjal ..Respondent

2.

ITR No. 186 of 1996 The Commissioner of Income Tax(Central), Ludhiana ...Appellant versus Smt. Rekha Munjal ..Respondent Date of decision: 29.04.2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Ms. Savita Saxena, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate and Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The present references under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') arise out of separate orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') on 14.11.1994 in relation to Assessment Year 1982-83. The Revenue has claimed the following substantial questions of law: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the share income Kumar Vimal 2013.05.07 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

ITR No. 184 & 186 of 1996 -2- attributable to 36% of the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 256(1)

All 370 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →