Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bhadiad In...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bhadiad Industries

High Court 18 Jul 1996 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bhadiad Industries
Date of order
18 Jul 1996
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Bhadiad Industries, the High Court (1996) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 303 of 1992 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN ============================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus BHADIAD INDUSTRIES -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE B.C.PATEL and MR.JUSTICE R.R.JAIN Date of decision: 18/07/96 ORAL JUDGEMENT �Tribunal has referred the following question under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to this Court for opinion :- "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the I.T.O. to grant registration to the assessee firm when two persons were partners in dual capacity i.e., one in their individual capacity and the other as representative of their respective HUF?" �Since the aforesaid question is answered by this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Budhalal Amulakhdas, 129 ITR, 97, this question is to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. �The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. ���***********
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan