High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan · Judgments and reasoned final orders

Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur v. Madad Ali Ansari & Co.

D.B. Income Tax Reference 16/1999 ·

Reference dismissed following earlier ruling that the firm’s genuineness was a factual finding.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

In Income Tax Reference 16/1999, the parties agreed that the issue was concluded by the Court’s decision of 6 July 2000 in Reference 4/1996, Commissioner of Income Tax v. Madad Ali Ansari.

Source: PDF p.1, first paragraph

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The earlier decision was described as holding that, once the conclusion about the firm’s genuineness was reached, the finding could not be disturbed because it was essentially factual. The parties were agreed on its application here.

Source: PDF p.1, first paragraph

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

Following Reference 4/1996, the Court dismissed the reference application.

Source: PDF p.1, operative paragraph

4. OUTCOME

Revenue’s reference ended with the factual finding undisturbed. The order is dated 16 April 2007; the retained archive ID and filename contain 15 April. No assessment year or statutory section is specified in the order.

Source: PDF p.1, caption and order

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

The agreed precedent controls this disposal

Both sides accepted that Reference 4/1996 concluded the issue. The short order applies that existing result; it does not independently examine the partnership documents or formulate a new test for proving genuineness.

Source: PDF p.1, first paragraph

A factual finding is not a universal immunity

The Court treated the particular genuineness conclusion as factual. This does not establish that every disputed firm must be accepted or that every possible legal challenge to a factual finding is barred. The underlying evidence and earlier reasoning are not reproduced here.

Source: PDF p.1, first paragraph

Use the correct decision for the proposition

This is the 16 April 2007 dismissal of Reference 16/1999, following the distinct 6 July 2000 ruling. A detailed proposition about the firm’s constitution should be checked against that earlier decision rather than supplied from this one-page disposal.

Source: PDF p.1, complete order

Source and verification

Complete 1-page original reviewed; source bytes verified.

Original PDF: 1 pages · SHA-256: eed29b48cb257a2185250a9ac3dfa3baaaac28d31774228049a66f6b8fad7ab2

Full original and all five panels re-reviewed on 21 October 2026.

Current law and subsequent treatment not independently verified.

Subsequent proceedings and current judicial treatment have not been independently verified.

AI disclosure and professional disclaimer

AI-assisted source review. Independent human approval is not represented.

General research only. Read the complete judgment and verify applicable law and subsequent treatment before reliance.