| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1983 SLG 685 1983 SLD 685 (1983) 140 ITR 418 |
Gauhati High Court
CIVIL RULE Nos. 1(M) AND 2(M) OF 1981
K. LAHIRI AND T.C. DAS, JJ.
G.K. Talukdar and D.K. Talukdar, for the Appellant. R.P. Agarwal and R.L. Jain, for the
Respondents.
CIVIL RULE Nos. 1(M) AND 2(M) OF 1981
K. LAHIRI AND T.C. DAS, JJ.
G.K. Talukdar and D.K. Talukdar, for the Appellant. R.P. Agarwal and R.L. Jain, for the
Respondents.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
v.
Law:
Section:
Section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Transfer of assets - For benefit of spouse etc., - Whether income of minors derived from partnership firm in which assessee as kartas of there respective HUFs were partners could not be included in computation of total income of assessee in their individual assessments - Held, yes Section 256 of the Income-tax Act 1961 - High Court - Reference to - Whether Tribunal is obliged to refer only question of law which calls for investigation, examination, debate or when it is dubious problem - Held, yes - Whether if point of law decided by Tribunal is positive, certain, definite and sure, there is no obligation on part of Tribunal to refer matter, as point of law cannot be termed as question of law - Held, yes - Whether even if point of law does arise out of decision of Tribunal but answer to point is self-evident and obvious or when question is of an academic nature or where it has been concluded by of Supreme Court/High Court under which Tribunal exercises its jurisdiction, Tribunal would be justified not to refer such point of law - Held, yes Words & Phrases - Expression "question of law" as occurring in section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. FACTS The Tribunal held that the income of the minors derived from the partnership firms, in which the assessees as kartas of their respective 'HUFs' were partners, could not be included in the computation of the total income of the assessees in their individual assessments. The said conclusions were reached on a perusal of the provisions of section 64(1). The reference application of the revenue was also rejected.. On application under section 256(2): HELD While considering an application under section 256(2), the court must bear in mind that the Tribunal is the primary authority to refer a question of law arising out of its order. It is a high-powered authority composed of members having special experience and expertise. In the fitness of its status, it always welcomes a decision (of the High Court) because such a determination of the High Court on any question of law gives a stamp of finality and assists, aids and helps the Tribunal not only to decide the case in hand but…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492