Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Dharam Pal Shanti Sarup - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberIncome-tax Case No. 121 of 1977
Judge
Reported in[1978]114ITR411(P& H)
ActsIncome Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 256(2)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentDharam Pal Shanti Sarup
Appellant Advocate D.N. Awasthy and; B.K. Jhingan, Advs.
Respondent Advocate Prem Singh and; S.S. Mahajan, Advs.
Cases ReferredDevidasVithaldas & Co. v. Commissioner of Income
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........expenditure incurred was in the nature of revenue expense. the commissioner of income-tax has come up with aprayer that we should direct the tribunal to state the case for bur decisionthe learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon devidasvithaldas & co. v. commissioner of income-tax : [1972]84itr277(sc) forthe proposition that such an expense has been rightly regarded as revenueexpense. 2. we are not concerned with the final outcome of this case. whether this expenditure should be regarded as capital expense or revenue expense it does raise a question of law. we accordingly allow this petition and direct the tribunal to state the case for our decision on the following question: 'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is right in law.....
Judgment:

1. The respondents paid a sum of Rs. 40,000 to the heirs of the deceasedpartner. Out of this amount, Rs. 32,500 were paid on account of goodwillThe Tribunal has held that this expenditure incurred was in the nature of revenue expense. The Commissioner of Income-tax has come up with aprayer that we should direct the Tribunal to state the case for bur decisionThe learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance upon DevidasVithaldas & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax : [1972]84ITR277(SC) forthe proposition that such an expense has been rightly regarded as revenueexpense.

2. We are not concerned with the final outcome of this case. Whether this expenditure should be regarded as capital expense or revenue expense it does raise a question of law. We accordingly allow this petition and direct the Tribunal to state the case for our decision on the following question:

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the sum of Rs. 32,500 is allowable as revenue expenditure ?'

3. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //