C.I.T RTK vs. DR. SKS MARYA

PDF · subscribers
ITR/85/1990HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01021641199024 October 2006Bench: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the question of law referred to it had already been decided in a previous judgment rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Vs. Dr. Usha Verma, Rohtak, ITR No. 47 of 1985, decided on 21.11.2001. In that precedent, the question was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Therefore, applying the ratio of the Dr. Usha Verma case, the High Court answered the present reference in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The operative direction is to answer the reference accordingly, implying the income from the Paying Clinic should be taxed under the head 'profits or gains of business or profession'. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak, has filed an Income Tax Reference (ITR) No. 85 of 1990 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The reference arises from an order dated 15.06.1989 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D", in I.T.A. No. 3938/DEL/86. The assessment year in question is 1983-84. The dispute concerns the head of income under which income derived from a 'Paying Clinic' should be taxed. The Tribunal had affirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) of Income-tax.

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 AAC of Income-tax holding that the income from Paying Clinic should be taxed under the head 'profits or gains of business or profession' and not under the head 'salary'? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the question itself implies the assessee likely argued that the income should be taxed under the head 'salary'. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Commissioner of Income Tax, sought to have the income taxed under the head 'profits or gains of business or profession'. The judgment does not detail the specific arguments presented by the revenue before the High Court, but it indicates their position was that the Tribunal erred in affirming the AAC's order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.R No.85 of 1990 Date of decision:24.10.2006 Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak ...Petitioner Versus Dr.S.K.S.Marya, Rohtak ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr.Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the revenue. **** JUDGMENT Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “D” Delhi arising out of its order dated 15.6.1989 passed in I.T.A.No.3938/DEL/86, in respect of the assessment year 1983-84. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the AAC of Income-tax holding that the income from Paying Clinic should be taxed under the head 'profits or gains of business or profession' and not under the head 'salary'?” The question has already been gone into by this Court in the judgment rendered in Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Vs. Dr. Usha Verma, Rohtak, ITR No.47 of 1985, decided on 21.11.2001 and the question has been answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. In view of the above, the question referred is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge October 24 ,2006 (Rajesh Bindal) Pka Judge

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →