Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax v. P P Contra...

Commissioner Of Income Tax v. P P Contractor

High Court 10 Aug 2000 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax v. P P Contractor
Date of order
10 Aug 2000
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax v. P P Contractor, the High Court (2000) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 2 of 1985 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES 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 Civil Judge? : NO 1�Yes 2 to 5 No -------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXVersus P P CONTRACTOR -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ORAL JUDGEMENT (per R.K. Abichandani, J.) �The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under sec. 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. �"1. Whether the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the deed of assignment dated 16.12.51 executed by the assessee did not suffer from any infirmity? �2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in holding that only 1/2 of the income of the residuary property of late Shri Pestonji Contractor could be taxed in the hands of the assessee?" 2.�When this Reference is called out, it is pointed out to us by the learned counsel that identical questions have already been answered by this court in CIT v. P.P. Contractor reported in 192 ITR 261 against the revenue. 3.�Following the said decision, both the questions referred to this court are answered in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. referred to this court are answered in the affirmative, 4.�The Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. ____ ����(A.R. Dave, J.) (hn)
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