COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SWAPNA ROY
LAWS(ALL)-2010-5-330
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
May 24,2010
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)
Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Swapna Roy
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SOCIETY OF MEDICAL OFFICERS V. HOPE [REFERRED TO]AMALGAMATED COALFIELDS LTD. V. JANAPADA SABHAL [REFERRED TO]
LORD DENNING M.R. IN LITTLEWOODS STORES V. I.R.C. [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. AMRITABEN R. SHAH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB V. KASHMIR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,WEST BENGAL -III V. RAJENDRA PRASAD MOODY [REFERRED TO]
CCE,MEERUT V. EUREKA FORBES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS V. P.M.P. COMPONENTS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS,COCHIN I V. ALSTHOM TANDD TRANSFORMERS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A.P. V. BHOORATNAM AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX V. LOVELY BAL SHIKSHA PARISHAD [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
U J S CHOPRA VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAM NARESH PANDEY:RAM NARESH PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
MAHARANA MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER PORBANDER [REFERRED TO]
RAJA BAHADUR VISHESHWARA SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BIHAR AND ORISSA IN ALL THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
INSTALMENT SUPPLY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
NEW JEHANGIR VAKIL MILLS CO LIMITED BHAVNAGAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY NORTH KUTCH AND SAURASHTRA AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]
VIDYACHARAN SHUKLA VS. KHUBCHAND BAGHEL [REFERRED TO]
DEVILAL MODI VS. SALES TAX OFFICER RATLAM [REFERRED TO]
JOINT FAMILY OF UDAYAN CHINUBHAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
M M LPOH M CHETTIPPAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX MADRAS IN ALL APPEALS :INCOME TAX OFFICER KARAIKUDI IN ALL APPEALS [REFERRED TO]
KAPUREHAND SHRIMAL KAPUREHAND SHRIMAL VS. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER HYDERABAD [REFERRED TO]
JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U P [REFERRED TO]
TARAPORE AND COMPANY MADRAS VS. TRACTORS EXPORT MOSCOW [REFERRED TO]
H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MADHAV RAO JIVAJI RAO SGINDIA BAHADUR OF GWALIOR H H MAHARAJADHIRAJA MAHARANA SHRI BHAGWAT SINGHJI BAHADUR OF UDAIPUR COL H H BRARBANS SARAMAUR RAJA I RAJAGAN SIR PRATAP SINGH MALVENDRA BAHADUR COL RAJA SURINDER SINGH BAHADUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K R DEB VS. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE SHILLONG [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WEST BENGAL VS. BIRLA COTTON SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. J N ROY BISWAS [REFERRED TO]
RAJPUT RUDA MEHA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
AMAR NATH OM PRAKASH FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RADHASOAMI SATSANG SAOMIBAGH AGRA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
RADHASOAMI SATSANG SAOMIBAGH AGRA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CHIEF PERSONNEL DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. KUNJ BEHARI MISRA:SHANTI PRASAD GOEL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. P THAYAGARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
MYSORE MINERALS LIMITED M G ROAD BANGALORE VS. COMMISSIONERS OF INCOME TAX KARNAKATA BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
MATHURAM AGRAWAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
K V SHIVAKUMAR VS. APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. K D PANDEY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. V. KAUMUDINI NARAYAN DALAL AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SATISH PANALAL SHAH [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI [REFERRED TO]
MADHUKAR VS. SANGRAM [REFERRED TO]
JAWAHAR LAL SAZAWAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. MANOHAR LAL [REFERRED TO]
BHAVNAGAR UNIVERSITY VS. PALITANA SUGAR MILL PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. CHAJJU RAM [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH VS. U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
MAKHIJA CONSTRUCTION and ENGGR PVT LTD VS. INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
VEMAREDDY KUMARASWAMY REDDY VS. STATE OF A P [REFERRED TO]
STATE C B I VS. SASHI BALASUBRAMANIAN [REFERRED TO]
MAHIM PATRAM PRIVATE LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. QIMAT RAI GUPTA [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF THANE VS. VIDYUT METALLICS LTD [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS. N NARASIMAHAIAH [REFERRED TO]
C K GANGADHARAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT VS. SHUKLA AND BROTHERS [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX VS. LOVELY BAL SHIKSHA PARISHAD [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. ALLIED FINANCE PVT LTD [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CALCUTTA VS. ASSOCIATED CLOTHIERS LTD [REFERRED TO]
Consolidated Fibres and Chemicals LTD VS. Commissioner of Income tax [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
ATIR TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (P.) LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-281] [REFERRED TO]COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. J.B.ROY [LAWS(DLH)-2012-10-227] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ROCKMAN CYCLE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD [LAWS(P&H)-2011-2-18] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Devi Prasad Singh, J. -
(1.)APPEAL under Section of the Income Tax Act was admitted on 14.2.2005. The Court has not framed substantial question of law itself while admitting the appeal keeping in view the question of law framed by the appellant enumerated in the memo of appeal. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties on 18.3.2010, the following substantial question of law was framed by the Court:
1. Whether the first appellate court and the tribunal had committed substantial illegality by deleting the addition with regard to interest on the loan taken from a company of Sahara Group without recording any finding with regard to dominant purpose for which the loan was taken keeping in mandate of class -III of Section of the Income Tax Act ?
(2.)KEEPING in view the fact that the controversy with regard to assessment year 1994 -95 and subsequent year 1997 - 98 has been settled upto appellate stage and question involve in the present assessment year is the same as of those years now it is not open for this Court to enter into illegality committed by the appellate authority or tribunal and appeal is not maintainable ?
FACTS
2. The dispute relates to assessment year 1996 -97. The assessee filed her return of income on 13.8.1996 disclosing net loss of Rs. 17,38,311/ -. Notice under Section of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short, Act was issued on 8.10.1996. Notice under Section of the Act was issued on 31.10.1996. These notices were served upon the respondent assessee on 10.10.1996 and 11.10.1996 respectively.
After service of notice aforesaid, the assessee filed a revised return on 31.3.1998 reducing the loss to the tune of Rs. 30,56,670/ - In consequence thereof, notice under Section was sent for service on 23.9.1998, followed by a notice dated 26.9.1996 under Section of the Act which was served on the assessee on 30.10.1998.
(3.)THE respondent assessee claims to be employee of M/s Sahara India, a firm of which the assessee is working as Head of Department of personnel affairs. In form 16, the gross salary of the assessee has been disclosed as Rs. 1,57,250/ - per month.
1. Whether the first appellate court and the tribunal had committed substantial illegality by deleting the addition with regard to interest on the loan taken from a company of Sahara Group without recording any finding with regard to dominant purpose for which the loan was taken keeping in mandate of class -III of Section of the Income Tax Act ?
(2.)KEEPING in view the fact that the controversy with regard to assessment year 1994 -95 and subsequent year 1997 - 98 has been settled upto appellate stage and question involve in the present assessment year is the same as of those years now it is not open for this Court to enter into illegality committed by the appellate authority or tribunal and appeal is not maintainable ?
FACTS
2. The dispute relates to assessment year 1996 -97. The assessee filed her return of income on 13.8.1996 disclosing net loss of Rs. 17,38,311/ -. Notice under Section of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short, Act was issued on 8.10.1996. Notice under Section of the Act was issued on 31.10.1996. These notices were served upon the respondent assessee on 10.10.1996 and 11.10.1996 respectively.
After service of notice aforesaid, the assessee filed a revised return on 31.3.1998 reducing the loss to the tune of Rs. 30,56,670/ - In consequence thereof, notice under Section was sent for service on 23.9.1998, followed by a notice dated 26.9.1996 under Section of the Act which was served on the assessee on 30.10.1998.
(3.)THE respondent assessee claims to be employee of M/s Sahara India, a firm of which the assessee is working as Head of Department of personnel affairs. In form 16, the gross salary of the assessee has been disclosed as Rs. 1,57,250/ - per month.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.