Shri Virender Natha Kataria, Railway Road, Panipat v. GK Devarajulu
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Income Tax Act, 1961 s. 54B
Judgment
Cause title
Shri Virender Natha Kataria, Railway Road, Panipat. ....Petitioner
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:
Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate, for the revenue.
JUDGMENT:
Following question has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal) arising out of its order dated 30.11.1990 in ITA No.3426/Del./1988, in respect of assessment year 1979-80:- “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, was right in holding that the assessee-HUF will be entitled to exemption under section 54 B(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” Learned counsel for the revenue relies upon judgment of the Madras High Court in CIT v. R.Vijayakumar, (1995) 214 ITR 483, holding that provision of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') was not available to HUF and was available only to an individual. Reliance was also placed on its earlier judgment in CIT v. GK Devarajulu, (1991) 191 ITR 211. We find that an identical issue has already been gone into by ITR No.58 of 1991 2 this Court in Raghunath Dass Sethi v. CIT, (2005) 277 ITR 341, wherein following the judgment of Delhi high Court in CIT v. KC Sahni (HUF), (2000) 246 ITR 299, it was held that prior to amendment in the year 1988, the benefit of Section 54 of the Act was not available to the assessee, which is HUF. Similar view has been expressed by various High Courts in Kanhyalal and Ramswaroop v. CIT, (1984) 149 ITR 157 (MP), Shrigopal Rameshwardas v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, MP, (1979) 119 ITR 980 (MP), Smt. Rampyaribai Narayandas v. CIT, MP, Bhopal, (1984) 147 ITR 223 (MP), Anam Venkata Krishna Reddy v. CIT, (1988) 172 ITR 425 (AP), Ravindra Gunvantlal Shah v. CIT, (1994) 208 ITR 995 (Guj.) and Pravin Chand Mohin Kumar v. CIT, (1994) 208 ITR 11 (Raj.). Concurring with the view already expressed by this Court in Raghunath Dass Sethi's case (supra). None appears for the assessee. Following the above view, we answer the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge October 30, 2006 'gs' (Rajesh Bindal) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Income Tax Act, 1961 — s. 54B.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 30 Oct 2006. The bench was RAJESH BINDAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.