Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shree Ramdev Silk Mills
High Court
30 Aug 1999 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shree Ramdev Silk Mills
Date of order
30 Aug 1999
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Shree Ramdev Silk Mills, the High Court (1999) decided the matter.
Issue: M/s Yoganand Textiles, the question, whether expenditure alleged to have been incurred by the partner who have been paid the amounts in question, is genuine or not, will have to be examined since neither the Commissioner of Income Tax nor the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has examined this question.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 350 of 1984
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
============================================================
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 Civil Judge? : NO
--------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
SHREE RAMDEV SILK MILLS
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner
MR KC PATEL for Respondent No. 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
Date of decision: 30/08/1999
ORAL JUDGEMENT
1.�The following question was referred for the
opinion of this Court :-
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in
coming to the conclusion that the amounts paid as
Majuri payments to the partners of the assessee were not disallowable under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961."
2.�At the time of hearing, our attention was invited
to a decision in Income Tax Reference No.241 of 1984, dated September 20, 1991. In the said case, the question which was referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of
this Court read as under :-
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the tribunal was right in law in
coming to the conclusion that the amounts paid as Majuri payments to the partners of the assessee firm were not disallowable under section 40(b) of
the Income-tax Act, 1961?"
3.�Relying on a decision in Commissioner of Income
Tax, Baroda v. M/s Yoganand Textiles, 202 I.T.R. 869, the question was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly in I.T.R. No. 241 of
the question was answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly in I.T.R. No. 241 of 1984 also, the question was answered in favour of the
revenue and against the assessee.
�In the last paragraph of the order, however, the Court stated;
�"We may, however, make it clear that, as
in the case of CIT vs. M/s Yoganand Textiles,
the question, whether expenditure alleged to have
been incurred by the partner who have been paid
the amounts in question, is genuine or not, will
have to be examined since neither the
Commissioner of Income Tax nor the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal has examined this question.
The question referred to us has been answered as
stated above subject to this clarification."
4.�Since the point is concluded by a decision of
this Court, in the instant case also, the question must
be answered in favour of the revenue and against the
assessee. It is, however, made clear, as has been made clear in the case of Yoganand Textiles, that the question whether the expenditure alleged to have been incurred by
the partners who have been paid the amounts in question is genuine or not, will have to be examined since the said question was neither examined by the Commissioner of
is genuine or not, will have to be examined since the said question was neither examined by the Commissioner of Income Tax nor by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
5.�Reference is disposed of accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to
costs.
����[ C.K. THAKKAR, J. ]
���� [ A.L. DAVE, J. ] gt
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.