2003 (1) TMI 9

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ot form a part of total income for the purpose of computing the accumulation of income in excess of 25 per cent. of the total income as laid down under section 11 - High Court was not justified in dismissing an application of revenue u/s 256(2) and 260A, for referring a question of law
Judge(s) : MRS. RUMA PAL. and B. N. SRIKRISHNA. ORDER These appeals impugn the correctness of two judgments .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eason why the Revenue sought this question of law to be referred for the opinion of the High Court was because there was a conflict of views on this question between the view expressed by the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Panchaiti Akhara Nirmal [1991] 192 ITR 186 and the view expressed by the Madras High Court in Silasri Kasivasi Muthukumaraswami Thambiran v. Agrl. ITO [1978] 113 ITR 889. The H .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h Court should have granted the application and directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law. Without a decision on the substantial question of law, the Revenue's appeal under section 260A on a substantial question of law could not have been dismissed. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside both the judgments. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of case and refer the question o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X