Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Natwarlal V Desai
High Court
17 Jul 2002 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Natwarlal V Desai
Date of order
17 Jul 2002
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Natwarlal V Desai, the High Court (2002) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? @ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXVersus NATWARLAL V DESAI -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1.
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 25 of 1991
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? @ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAXVersus NATWARLAL V DESAI -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 25 of 1991 MR TANVISH U BHATT for Petitioner No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date of decision: 17/07/2002
(Per : MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
�In this case, the applicant- revenue has
preferred the application being ITA No.15 of 1985 under
Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act and this Court has directed the Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 8-1-1986 to draw a statement of case and refer the question of law as stated therein. Accordingly, the ITAT has referred to the following question of law for the
opinion of this Court:-
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the finding of the Appellate
Tribunal that no sub partnership was formed
between the assessee and his wife Smt.
Suryakanta Natverlal and share income of the
assessee's wife could not be included in the
income of the assessee, is correct in law and
sustainable from the material on record?"
2.�Heard Mr Tanvish Bhatt learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the applicant- revenue. Nobody appears on
behalf of the respondent - assessee though notice was
duly served.
�The assessment year involved is assessment year
1980-81.
3.�The issue involved in the present reference is
squarely covered by the earlier decision of this Court in assessee's own case in ITR No.154 of 1989 decided on 5-7-2002. This Court has confirmed the view taken by the Tribunal in the earlier decision and has held that no subpartnership was formed between the assessee and his wife namely, Smt. Suryakanta Natverlal and share income of the assessee's wife could not be included in the
income of the assessee.
�Following the aforesaid decision, we are of the
view that the Tribunal was right and justified in holding
that no subpartnership was formed between the assessee
and his wife namely, Suryakanta Natverlal and share
income of the assessee's wife could not be included in
the income of the assessee.
�We, therefore, answer the question referred to us
in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and
against the revenue.
4.�The Reference is accordingly disposed of with no
order as to costs.
���(M.S. Shah,J)�(K.A. Puj,J)
zgs/-
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.