S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount coming to the share of the husband of the assessee, in a representative capacity as the Karta of the HUF in the firm of M/s Morvi Time Company was not liable to be included in the income of the assessee under the provisions of s. 64 of the IT Act, 1961.

Supreme Court Of India

CIT vs. Smt. Ravaban B. Mistry

Section 64(1)(ii)

S.P. Bharucha, Y.K. Sabharwal & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 3317 of 1990

24th August, 2000

ORDER

BY THE COURT :

The High Court answered the following question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, following its judgment in Dinubhai Ishvarlal Patel vs. K.D. Dixit, ITO (1979) 118 ITR 122 (Guj) : TC 42R.595. The question reads thus :

“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the amount coming to the share of the husband of the assessee, in a representative capacity as the Karta of the HUF in the firm of M/s Morvi Time Company was not liable to be included in the income of the assessee under the provisions of s. 64 of the IT Act, 1961.”

2. The question is now covered against the Revenue by the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in CIT vs. Om Prakash (1999) 155 CTR (SC) 206 : (1999) 238 ITR 1044 (SC). The appeal is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

[Citation : 248 ITR 184]

Malcare WordPress Security