In Taxc/66/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Rajmal Rakhecha (Huf), the High Court (2010) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
I N T H E H O N ’ B L E H I G H C O U R O F J U D I C A T U R E F OC H H A T T I S G A R H A T B I L S P U R
C a s e N o z é[€ 4 2]O M W
»V
Q “
T a x
R
‘ 6 ‘P P E L L A N TL 9C O M M I S S I O N E R O F/I N C O M E T A X( R e v e n u e )” £ 7 A " ?. . . . .R A I P U RM
AP P E L L A N T
V E R S U S
RE S P O N D E N T
:v[’ f]
J( A s s e s s e e )( A s s e s s e e )
‘ *
3
/ R ’ A J M A L ( H U F )’P R O P . S O U R A B H R I C E M I L L ,V I L L S E H R A D A B R I ,D H A M T A R I
A P P E A L U N D E R S E C T I O N 2 6 0 - A\ J ’ f / O F T H E3E C O M ET A X A C T ,1 9 6 1
( é )
T m c a k r c C P I y g l u bO 7’
m m( W m
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.
EaseValue