CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsFull Bench(2000) 08 DEL CK 0099

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Bercos Melody House

Delhi High Court · Decided on 31 August 2000 · Citation: (2002) 120 TAXMAN 669

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arijit Pasayat, C.J · D.K. Jain, J
CASE NUMBER
IT Ref. No''s. 249 and 250 of 1979 31 August 2000

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 364 words

Arijit Pasayat, C.J.

These are two references u/s 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) relating to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 and following questions have been referred by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench B, for opinion of this court:

In R.A. No. 419

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amounts inherited by the two partners, Shri Krishan Advani and Shri Baldev Advani from their father and mother after their death belonged to their HUFs constituted by them, their wives and their children ?

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, deleting the disallowance of Rs. 12,964 made u/s 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, on account of interest paid to the partners?"

In R.A. No. 420

"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the amounts inherited by the two partners Shri Krishan Advani and Shri Baldev Advani, from their father and mother after their death belonged to their HUFs constituted by them, their wives and their children?

2.

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 14,521 made u/s 40(b) of the Income Tax Act, on account of interest paid to the partners?"

There is no appearance on behalf of the assessed in spite of notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the revenue.

2.

The scope and ambit of section 40(b) of the Act came up for consideration of the Apex Court in Rashiklal and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa, . On going through the orders of the Tribunal and after hearing the learned counsel for the revenue we feel that the matter should be re-heard by the Tribunal by fresh adjudication keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Rashik Lal & Co.s case (supra).

3.

The references are disposed of accordingly.