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)
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.