TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the amount of Rs. 3,41,655 represented income that had accrued to the assessee; (ii) whether the said income belonged to the assessee or to Smt. Gitesh Bansal.
Issue (i): Whether the amount of Rs. 3,41,655 represented income that had accrued to the assessee.
Analysis: The findings recorded showed that the amount arose from a forward transaction in goods, was credited in the account of Smt. Gitesh Bansal at the end of the accounting year, was admitted by the assessee in correspondence as having been earned, and was also claimed by him as a bad debt. The assessee had further filed a suit for recovery of the same amount. These circumstances supported the Tribunal's conclusion that the income had in fact arisen.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the said income belonged to the assessee or to Smt. Gitesh Bansal.
Analysis: On the evidence considered by the Tribunal, the amount was held to belong to the assessee and not to Smt. Gitesh Bansal. The challenge required reappreciation of facts, and the finding was based on evidence already on record.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of revenue.
Final Conclusion: The Court held that both questions turned on findings of fact and no referable question of law arose, so the petition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Findings of accrual and ownership of income based on evidence are pure questions of fact and do not give rise to a referable question of law.
TaxTMI 
