Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Indore Plastics (P) Ltd.

Cit vs indore Plastics (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 18, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/512681

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case Number
MCC No. 566 of 1994 18 July 2002
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: R.L. Jain, for the Revenue Sanjay Patwa, for the Assessee In the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench Deepak Verma & N.K. Jain, JJ. -

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate R.L. Jain, <i>for the Revenue </i>Sanjay Patwa, <i>for the Assessee</i>

Respondent

indore Plastics (P) Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
[2002]124TAXMAN729(MP)

Excerpt

counsels: r.l. jain, for the revenue sanjay patwa, for the assessee in the madhya pradesh high court, indore bench deepak verma & n.k. jain, jj. - orderheard mr. r.l. jain, the learned counsel for the applicant-department and mr. sanjay patwa, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.2. this is an application under section 256(2) of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') as it stood before the amendment of 1999, praying for calling reference from the tribunal, indore bench, for resolution of the question, as extracted in para 4 of the application, which is said to be a question of law.3. the dispute is regarding the payments made to the assessee in instalments, by one shri r.c. khosla, in the relevant assessment year, amounting to rs. 2,31,390. apparently, shri khosla was the promoter and managing director of the respondent-company. according to the assessing authority as also the commissioner (appeals), the said payment was in contravention of section 269ss of the act and the assessee was, therefore, liable to pay penalty. the penalty so imposed was, however, vacated in second appeal by the tribunal on the finding that the said payment was not by way of deposit or loan, but towards adjustment of the amount drawn by shri khosla, from the company's account. we find ourselves in full agreement with the tribunal that the aforesaid finding is a finding of fact, and, therefore, does not give rise to any question of law to be answered by this court.4. we, therefore, decline the prayer and dismiss the application.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Heard Mr. R.L. Jain, the learned counsel for the applicant-department and Mr. Sanjay Patwa, the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee.

2. This is an application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as it stood before the amendment of 1999, praying for calling reference from the Tribunal, Indore Bench, for resolution of the question, as extracted in para 4 of the application, which is said to be a question of law.

3. The dispute is regarding the payments made to the assessee in instalments, by one Shri R.C. Khosla, in the relevant assessment year, amounting to Rs. 2,31,390. Apparently, Shri Khosla was the promoter and managing director of the respondent-company. According to the assessing authority as also the Commissioner (Appeals), the said payment was in contravention of section 269SS of the Act and the assessee was, therefore, liable to pay penalty. The penalty so imposed was, however, vacated in second appeal by the Tribunal on the finding that the said payment was not by way of deposit or loan, but towards adjustment of the amount drawn by Shri Khosla, from the company's account. We find ourselves in full agreement with the Tribunal that the aforesaid finding is a finding of fact, and, therefore, does not give rise to any question of law to be answered by this court.

4. We, therefore, decline the prayer and dismiss the application.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial