Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jayantilal D. Patel - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....to be examined whether the person was fully integrated into the employers concern or has remained apart from and independent of it. the other facts which may be relevant are as to who has the power to select and dismiss, to pay remuneration, to organize the work, etc. a full time worker usually works in a week for 40 hours or more depending on the award or agreement. if a person falls under the definition of workman under section 2(s) and does not fall in any excluded category, he will be covered by the definition of workman under the i.d. act, and he will be entitled to all the benefits under the said act. a perusal of section 2(s) indicates that it does not specifically refer to a part-time workman nor does it specifically exclude a part-time workman from the definition of :workman. since the number of hours is not the determining criterion for deciding whether a person falls within the definition of workman or not, it cannot be said that a part-time worker is not a workman within the meaning of the provisions of the i.d. act. however, to decide the status of a worker rendering services for less than 40 hours a week, various aspects are required to be considered. the..........of the income tax act, 1961 (the act) at the instance of commissioner of income tax.[1] whether, the appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the income tax officer to exclude 50% share of profit of biren nandish trust from the income of the assessee?[2] whether, the appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of section 60 of the income tax act cannot be invoked.2. the assessment year is 1983-84 and the corresponding accounting period is samvat year 2038.3. heard mr.manish r. bhatt, the learned senior standing counsel for the applicant. though served, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent assessee.4. as can be seen seen from the impugned order dated 26th september, 1991 passed by the tribunal, the tribunal has merely followed its earlier decision in assessee's own case for assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83. the aforesaid order of the tribunal had been carried before this court by way of income tax reference no.212 of 1995, which has been decided by judgment and order of even date and the issue has been concluded in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. in the circumstances, it is not necessary.....