9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 64(1)(ii) could not again be assessed in the hands of the assessee?" - the question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - - - - - Dated:- 29-8-2002 - Judge(s) : D. K. JAIN., MS. SHARDA AGGARWAL. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by D. K. JAIN J. -At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd., in which his wife's share holding was to the extent of 2.56 percent. The assessee received a salary of Rs. 13,200 from each of the two companies. In his return of income for the assessment year 1978-79, the assessee did not include the said salary income from the companies on the ground that the same is taxable in the hands of his wife, namely, Smt. Madhu Soni, under section 64(1)(ii) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3, rejected the contention of the assessee that the assessee's wife had substantial interest in the aforementioned two companies. The Tribunal, thus, upheld the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, while rejecting the stand of the assessee on the merits, the Tribunal finally concluded that since the same salary income has already been assessed in the hands of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axed in respect of that income, the Revenue is not precluded from including the same in the hands of the person, in whose hands it is liable to be taxed in accordance with law. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with learned counsel for the Revenue. Apart from the fact that no such plea was raised before the Tribunal, while coming to the conclusion that there was no principle in law j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
