Itr/133/2000 Of Ms. Tasneem Siraj Lokhandwala v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-I,Mumbai
High Court
02 Sep 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
Itr/133/2000 Of Ms. Tasneem Siraj Lokhandwala v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-I,Mumbai
Date of order
02 Sep 2016
Assessment year(s)
1987-88
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Itr/133/2000 Of Ms. Tasneem Siraj Lokhandwala v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central-I,Mumbai, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.
Decision: 5.The Reference is disposed of in the above terms.
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 JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 133 OF 2000
Tasneem Siraj Lokhandwalav/s. The Commissioner of Income Tax,Central-I, Mumbai
.. Applicant
.. Respondent
Mr. Jitendra Jain for the applicant None for the respondent
CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA & S.C. GUPTE, J.J.
DATED : 2[nd] SEPTEMBER, 2016.
P.C.
1.This Reference under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act,
1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal at the joint request of the Revenue and the Assessee raises the following substantial questions of law for our consideration :-
– Question at the instance of the Assessee
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs.30,00,000/- on surrender of assessee's beneficial rights in the trust is assessable to tax?”
–Question at the instance of the Revenue
“In the event of the answer to the question referred at the instance of the assessee is in the affirmative, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the receipt of Rs.30,00,000/- on surrender of assessee's beneficial interests in
the trust is to be taxed under the head 'Capital Gains' or under the head 'Income from business'?”
2.The relevant assessment year is A.Y. 1987-88.
3.Mr. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the assessee, on instructions, states that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the present Reference. In the above view, the question as framed at the instance of the assessee is returned unanswered.
4.The substantial question as framed at the instance of the Revenue would only arise for consideration if the question raised by the assessee is answered in favour of the assessee. This is evident from the question itself. However, as the assessee is not interested in pursuing the question raised at its instance, the occasion to answer the question in its favour does not arise. In this view, the question framed at the instance of the Revenue became academic. Thus, the same is also returned unanswered.
5.The Reference is disposed of in the above terms.
(S.C. GUPTE, J.)
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
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.