Smt Krishnabai Bhritar Ganpatrao Deshmukh v. Appasaheb Tuljaramarao Nimbalkar and Others

Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

…and not on the ‘proprietor’ who provides the luxury. 13. The reliance placed by the learned Government Pleader on the decisions in Godfrey Philips India Limited v. State of UP – [(2005) 2 SCC 515] and State of Karnataka & Ors v. Drive-in Enterprises – [(2001) 4 SCC 60] in support of his contention that the incidence of luxury tax is on the enjoyment of luxury and not on the providing of luxury is also misplaced. The said decisions considered the issue of legislative competence of the respective legislatures while imposing the levy of luxury tax. It was in that context that the Supreme Court found that t…

Comnr.of I.Tax vs. Wesco

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

…e joint family. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Smt. Krishnabai Bhritar Ganpatrao Deshmukh v. Appasaheb Tuljaramarao Nimbalkar and Ors reported in (1979) 4 SCC 60, which reads thus:- "In an undivided Hindu family of Mitakshra concept, unity of own­ ership and commonsality of enjoyment is present while the family remains undivided. Such unity and commonsality or the essential attributes of the concept of joint family status. Cesser of this unity and commonsality means cesser or severance of the joint fam…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Cuttack vs. M/S.Patnaik Mineerals Pvt.Ltd

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE R.K.PATTANAIK

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s OM R.S.Wines

Appeal is hereby allowed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

…07.1985 therefore the First Appellate Court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. He has relied upon the judgment of Smt Krishnabai Bhritar Ganpatrao Deshmukh V. Appasaheb Tuljaramarao Nimbalkar and Others reported in (1979) 4 SCC 60, wherein the Apex Court has held thus: “In an undivided Hindu family of Mitakshra concept, no member can say that he is the owner of one-half, one- third or one-fourth share in the family property, there being unity of ownership and commonality of enjoyment while the family remains undivided. Such unity and commonality or the essential attributes o…