C.I.T. HY. ROHTAK vs. DR. (MRS.) SUSHILA RATHI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the issue stands covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The Court referred to its own previous judgment in B.M. Parmar v. C.I.T. (1999) 235 ITR 679. Furthermore, the Court cited its recent judgment dated 5.9.2006 in I.T.R. No.15 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. Kamal Kishore Batra DO, LIC, Kalanaur, Rohtak), where a similar question was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Consequently, the Court answered the referred question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.
What were the facts?
This case involves a reference to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh concerning Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 17 of 1991. The applicant is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak, and the respondent is Dr. (Mrs.) Sushila Rathee, Rohtak. The assessment year in question is 1983-84. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, passed an order dated 2.5.1990 in I.T.A. No.5559/Del/1987. The dispute revolves around the classification of income earned from a paying clinic.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by holding that income from a paying clinic should be taxed under the head ‘profit or gains of business or profession’ and not under the head ‘salary’? Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. The Tribunal's order, which is under challenge, affirmed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision to tax the income under ‘profit or gains of business or profession’. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, as the applicant before the High Court, sought to argue that the income from the paying clinic should indeed be taxed under the head ‘profit or gains of business or profession’ and not ‘salary’. The revenue's position aligns with the Tribunal's ultimate finding.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, arising out of its order dated 2.5.1990 in I.T.A. No.5559/Del/1987 in respect of assessment year 1983-84:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by holding that that income from paying clinic should be taxed under the head ‘profit or gains of business or profession’ and not under the head ‘salary’?” We find that the issue stands covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by the judgment of this Court in B.M. Parmar v. C.I.T. (1999) 235 ITR 679. In our recent judgment dated 5.9.2006 in I.T.R. No.15 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. Kamal Kishore Batra DO, LIC, Kalanaur, Rohtak), we have answered the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the question referred is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 02, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL )
ashwani JUDGE P
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
