Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- indian penal code, 1890.section 306 :[dalveer bhandari & harjit singh bedi,jj] abetment of suicide deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - ocular evidence was sketchy - dying declaration recorded by tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence held, though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

sohani, j.1. by this reference under section 256(1) of the income-tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'), the income-tax appellate tribunal, indore bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed rs. 3,500?'2. the material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:the assessment year in question is 1979-80. the assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. from two employers, the assessee received.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sohani, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Reference answered accordingly.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '503305',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
			'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '503305',
		(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income Tax Vs P S Kalani - Citation 503305 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '503305',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984',
		'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence  Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and  heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-02-04',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sohani, J.</p><p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p>5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '503305',
	(int) 1 => 'commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/503305/commissioner-income-tax-vs-p-s-kalani'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sohani, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :',
	(int) 2 => '<p>'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'',
	(int) 3 => '<p>2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'',
	(int) 7 => '<p>4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>5. Reference answered accordingly.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p>',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 11
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Direct Taxation
Court	Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On	Feb-04-1986
Case Number	M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984
Judge	G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.
Reported in	(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)
Acts	Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984
Appellant	Commissioner of Income-tax
Respondent	P.S. Kalani
Appellant Advocate	R.C. Mukati, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	S.C. Bagadia, Adv.

Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani - Court Judgment