Case LawHigh Court › Rc/173/1996 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Rc/173/1996 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Visakhapatnam v. M/S.mullapudi Family Kakinada

High Court 17 Mar 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Rc/173/1996 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Visakhapatnam v. M/S.mullapudi Family Kakinada
Date of order
17 Mar 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Rc/173/1996 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Visakhapatnam v. M/S.mullapudi Family Kakinada, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI& THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO REFERRED CASE NO :173 of 1996 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) In this case, under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the following question is referred to this Court for opinion: “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal is justified in directing the assessingofficer to tax at the maximum marginal rates only theincome of each beneficiary and not the aggregate incomeof all the beneficiaries in the hands of the Trust ? When the matter was taken up, both the Counsel submitted thatthe above referred question is covered by a judgment of this Court inR.C.No.145 of 1992 dated 30.6.2003. Recording the above submission, this reference is answered interms of the above judgment. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari _____________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao Date: 17[th] March, 2010 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI& THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO REFERRED CASE NO : 173 of 1996(Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 17/03/2010
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