Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal upholds original assessments, spouse's qualifications key. CIT's Section 263 revision overturned, appeals allowed.</h1> <h3>Mrs. Sadhana Gunwant Shah. Versus Income-Tax Officer.</h3> The Tribunal held that the original assessments were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the spouse of the assessee possessed the ... A Firm, Accounting Year, Assessing Officer, Orders Prejudicial To Interests Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Applicability of Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.3. Definition and interpretation of 'technical or professional qualification' under Section 64(1)(ii).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The CIT invoked Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to revise the original assessments made by the assessing officer. The CIT deemed the original assessments erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because the assessing officer did not include the remuneration and commission received by Shri Gunwant J. Shah in the income of the assessee, as mandated by Section 64(1)(ii). The Tribunal, however, held that the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263, as the original assessments were not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the spouse of the assessee possessed the requisite professional and technical qualifications, and the salary and commission paid were solely attributable to his technical or professional knowledge and experience.2. Applicability of Section 64(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:The CIT included the remuneration and commission received by Shri Gunwant J. Shah in the income of the assessee under Section 64(1)(ii), arguing that he did not possess any technical or professional qualification related to the manufacture of chemicals required in the textile industry. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the spouse of the assessee had a B.Com. degree and significant experience, which qualified as professional knowledge and experience. The Tribunal relied on the harmonious construction of the proviso to Section 64(1)(ii) provided by various High Courts, which emphasized that technical or professional qualifications did not necessarily require formal certification but could include expertise gained through experience.3. Definition and interpretation of 'technical or professional qualification' under Section 64(1)(ii):The Tribunal examined various judgments to interpret 'technical or professional qualification.' The Karnataka High Court in CIT v. D. Rajagopal adopted a strict interpretation, requiring formal qualifications. However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Batta Kalyani and the Kerala High Court in Sorabji Dorabji provided a broader interpretation, considering expertise gained through experience as sufficient. The Tribunal preferred the broader interpretation, aligning with the majority view, and concluded that the spouse of the assessee possessed the requisite qualifications. The Tribunal also referred to the Special Bench decision in Dr. J.N. Mokashi, which emphasized that any occupation requiring intellectual or manual skill controlled by intellectual skill could be considered a profession.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the spouse of the assessee possessed the requisite technical or professional qualifications, and the salary and commission paid to him were attributable to his professional knowledge and experience. Therefore, the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 to revise the original assessments. The Tribunal set aside the revisional orders of the CIT and restored the original assessments made by the assessing officer. The appeals were allowed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found