Cit Vs. Smt. Satyawati Devi - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammad.....question of law under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for opinion to this court:'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the appellate tribunal was right in holding that the income tax officer was not justified in reducing the relief under section 80k of the income tax act, 1961 originally granted to the assessee as a shareholder on the basis of the certificates issued by the income tax officer under section 197(3) of the act to the principal officers of the concerned companies and the consequential certificates issued by the principal officers to the shareholders under rule 31(4) of the income-tax rules, 1962 on the basis of the assessments made on the companies?'2. heard shri a.n. mahajan, learned standing counsel, for the revenue and no body appears, for the assessee.3. it may be mentioned here that similar question in the case of another member of the same group, namely, shri bhupendra kumar modi came up for consideration before this court in cit v. bhupendra kumar modi (it reference no. 77 of 1980, dated 9-2-1999) and this court has agreed with the view taken by the tribunal and it answered the question.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, has referred the following question of law under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1916 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for opinion to this Court:

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Income Tax Officer was not justified in reducing the relief under section 80K of the Income Tax Act, 1961 originally granted to the assessee as a shareholder on the basis of the certificates issued by the Income Tax Officer under section 197(3) of the Act to the Principal Officers of the concerned companies and the consequential certificates issued by the Principal Officers to the shareholders under rule 31(4) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 on the basis of the assessments made on the companies?'

2. Heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, learned Standing counsel, for the Revenue and no body appears, for the assessee.

3. It may be mentioned here that similar question in the case of another Member of the same group, namely, Shri Bhupendra Kumar Modi came up for consideration before this court in CIT v. Bhupendra Kumar Modi (IT Reference No. 77 of 1980, dated 9-2-1999) and this court has agreed with the view taken by the Tribunal and it answered the question referred to it in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

4. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs.