The Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Pallavi J. Kineriwala....opponent(S

O/TAXAP/37/2002 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL NO. 37 of 2002 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER ================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus PALLAVI J. KINERIWALA....Opponent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERIandHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER Date : 19/11/2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant-Revenue has challenged the judgment and order dated 23.7.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench “B” in ITA No. 4189/Ahd/1995 for AY 1991-92. 2.While admitting this appeal on 8.12.2003, this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in law and on facts in holding that assignment of assessee’s share in the partnership firm, in favour of a body of individuals creates overriding title in favour of a body of individuals and that the said income cannot be treated as income of the assessee ? (2) Whether the assignment of part of his share from the partnership firm by the assessee in favour of a body of individuals is not the real income of the assessee but of the body of individuals and as such assessable only O/TAXAP/37/2002 JUDGMENT individuals ? 3.The learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee has however, pointed out that the appeal involves low tax effect. The amount in dispute is below Rs. 2 lacs. He pointed out that at the relevant time as per Board’s circular which now has statutory effect by virtue of Section 368A of the Income Tax Act, introduced with retrospective effect, monetary limit prescribed for preferring appeal before the High Court was Rs. 2 lakhs. 4.In view of above, this appeal is disposed of only on the ground of law tax effect without touching the legal issues involved. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) mandora (K.J.THAKER, J)