{"id":1907,"date":"2010-12-01T10:20:18","date_gmt":"2010-12-01T04:50:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/?p=1907"},"modified":"2010-12-01T10:20:18","modified_gmt":"2010-12-01T04:50:18","slug":"569-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/569-2010\/","title":{"rendered":"Income tax returns cannt decide Maintenance"},"content":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
\nCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<\/strong>
\nWRIT PETITION NO.569 OF 2010<\/p>\n

Amit Rasiklal Shah …Petitioner
\nVs.
\nSonal Amit Shah …Respondent<\/p>\n

Ms. T. F. Irani for the Petitioner
\nMr. Rakesh K. Agarwal for Respondent<\/p>\n

CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
\nDATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2010
\nORAL ORDER :<\/p>\n

1. The Petitioner husband has challenged the order of the Family Court, Mumbai dated 4th November 2009 granting interim
\nmaintenance of Rs.20,000\/\u00ad to his wife and Rs.10,000\/\u00ad each to his sons in the Petition filed by the wife.
\n2. The Petitioner\u2019s income is required to be seen to adjudicate whether the impugned order grants a reasonable amount of
\nmaintenance or whether the maintenance is excessive considering the Petitioner\u2019s station in life.<\/p>\n

3. The Respondent wife has not been shown to be having any separate means of livelihood. The two children are aged about 12 and 10 years.<\/p>\n

4. The Petitioner has produced income tax returns for 3 years. He
\ncontends that net taxable income is the only numerical figure
\nfrom the income tax returns must be seen by the Court based
\nupon which the maintenance for the wife and children must be
\ngranted. The contention is wholly incorrect. It would be
\nabsurd to consider the net income of an assessee who has
\nvarious sources of income some of which may not be liable to
\ntax at all.<\/p>\n

5. Consequently, the computation of taxable income of the
\nPetitioner\u2019s individual returns must be seen in its entirety and
\nhas to be read as a whole. The Petitioner is admittedly in
\nbusiness. Hence the business returns of the partnership firm or
\nsole proprietary concern along with the trading and profit and
\nloss account as well as the balance sheet of the firm must be
\nseen to appreciate what income the firm or the individual
\nwould have at least approximately earned and what income is
\nultimately shown as the net taxable income. This is aside from
\nthe fact that it is settled position in law that the tax returns of
\na party shown by the party in Court, specially in matrimonial
\nproceedings, cannot be taken for the gospel.<\/p>\n

6. With that it will be interesting and appropriate to decipher the
\nPetitioner\u2019s income from the individual returns shown by
\nhimself.<\/p>\n

7. The Petitioner was married in 1997. The parties have fallen off
\nin April 2006. The wife lives with her two sons in her parental home.<\/p>\n

8. The Petitioner\u2019s income tax returns is for the year 2006\u00ad2007.
\nIt makes interesting reading. The income from his business
\nand profession is only Rs.9695\/\u00ad. The long term capital gains
\nof the Petitioner are Rs.3.62 lakhs. Income from other sources
\nis Rs. 1 lakh and the gross total income is Rs.4.72 lakhs. After
\ndeductions under Section 80 C of the Income Tax Act of Rs.1
\nlakh the total income is shown to be Rs.3.72 lakhs. The
\ncomputation of his total income shows, not profit from his
\nbusiness, but as salary of Rs.1 lakh with the aforesaid capital gains.<\/p>\n

9. For the next assessment year 2007\u00ad2008 the Petitioner has
\nshown the share of profit from his firm of Vintex Optics as well
\nas Mesha International. These are petty figures of Rs.25000\/\u00ad
\nand Rs.9000\/\u00ad each. The Petitioner has shown the
\nremuneration from Vintex Optics which exceeds his share of
\nprofit. It is approximately Rs.57000\/\u00ad less interest thereon of
\nRs.27000\/\u00ad. The Petitioner has shown commission received
\nfrom another firm. It is stated by him in Court that he had
\nintroduced a client from Andheri to his brother in the said firm
\nfor which he received a commission of Rs.90000\/\u00ad. The
\nPetitioner has further shown short term as well as long term
\ncapital gains. These are on shares of listed companies. The
\ndividend income from shares, which is exempt from tax is in a
\nsum of Rs.37,688\/\u00ad as also with interest on RBI bonds and PPF
\ninterest. The long term capital gains is to the extent of Rs.16.5
\nlakhs and short term profit of shares treated separately is also
\nshown deducted from the income of the Petitioner on certain
\nshares. Income of the two minor sons of the Petitioner is also
\nshown in his own return. The LIC premium which is deducted
\nis of Rs.1lakh and the Petitioner who is present in Court
\nconcedes that the LIC policies are more than Rs.20 lakhs.<\/p>\n

10.The returns for the year 2008\u00ad2009 also shows the share of
\nprofit from Mesha International, but not from Vintex Optics. It
\nshows a loss from this proprietary concern. These returns also
\nshow the dividend, PPF, Insurance etc. as in the earlier year.
\nThe capital account of the Petitioner which is shown only in
\nthe last year\u2019s income tax returns shows gift of Rs.5 lakhs and
\nRs.2.25 lakhs amongst others given to his father and his
\nbrothers. The income from the partnership firm of Nisha
\nInternational is not shown. Instead the assets in the balance
\nsheet shows a certain flat premises in Goregaon. The
\ninvestments in shares, insurance, mutual funds recurring
\ndeposits, PPF etc. are also shown aggregating to about Rs.55
\nlakhs including the investment in shares of Rs.30 lakhs. Loans
\nand advances are shown against all the family members except
\nperhaps his wife. The cash and bank balances are shown to
\naggregate to approximately Rs.3 lakhs.<\/p>\n

11.These returns themselves show the worth of the Petitioner.
\nThey do not show a person who earns an amount of Rs.
\n20000\/\u00ad per month as is alleged by the Petitioner. A person
\nwho earns that income, if that be his only income, would not
\nbe able to invest in shares of listed companies, insurance, PPF
\naccount, government bonds, flat, shop etc. Though these
\nassets are not liable to distribution or division whilst
\nconsidering the interim maintenance, these are required to be
\nseen and appreciated by the court for considering the income
\nearned from such assets to appreciate his standing in society.<\/p>\n

12.It is argued on behalf of wife that the Petitioner\u2019s total
\nearnings including earnings as a partner or sole proprietor in
\nthe aforesaid firms and as a Director in Global Parasol
\nReinsurance Bonds besides having shares, bank accounts and
\ncash etc. It is also argued that the Petitioner owns 5 cars and
\nhas bank accounts in IDBI Bank, Axis Bank, Indian Overseas
\nBank and HDFC Bank. The Petitioner also has credit card of
\nCitibank.<\/p>\n

13.The Advocate on behalf of wife drew my specific attention to
\nthe income tax returns of the Petitioner for the assessment year
\n2007\u00ad2008 showing the current year\u2019s income remaining after
\nset off of the losses of earlier years including salary, business
\nspeculation, short term capital gain etc., to be Rs.3.65 lakhs.
\nThe total exempted income including the long term capital
\ngain against security transactions is shown to be Rs.17.5 lakhs.
\nThe learned Judge has considered the aforesaid amounts to
\ndetermine the Petitioner\u2019s standard of living. That has been
\ncorrectly considered. Though the Petitioner may be entitled to
\nset off the losses and though the Petitioner may be legally
\nexempt from tax for the purpose of payment of income or
\nwealth tax, the fact that the Petitioner has earned those
\namounts cannot be sidelined. It would have to be considered
\nreading the taxation returns as a whole. Considering these
\nreturns itself the interim maintenance amount would be
\ncalculated. This would leave out the immovable properties, if
\nany, owned by the Petitioner and the Bank accounts which are
\nnot produced before this Court. Upon seeing these returns
\nmaintenance of Rs.20000\/\u00ad for the wife and Rs.10000\/\u00ad each
\nfor the children is not only reasonable, but in order. The order
\nof the learned Family Court Judge is not required to interfered
\nwith.<\/p>\n

14.The Writ Petition is dismissed.
\n15.The Civil Application No.2705\/2010 also stands disposed off
\nas infructuous.
\n(SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.569 OF 2010 Amit Rasiklal Shah …Petitioner Vs. Sonal Amit Shah …Respondent…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1091,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_customify_content_layout":"","_customify_sidebar":"","_customify_page_header_display":"","_customify_disable_header":"","_customify_disable_header_top":"","_customify_disable_header_main":"","_customify_disable_header_bottom":"","_customify_disable_page_title":"","_customify_disable_content_vertical_padding":"","_customify_disable_footer_top":"","_customify_disable_footer_main":"","_customify_disable_footer_bottom":"","_customify_breadcrumb_display":"","_customify_header_transparent_display":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[13464,3555,13468,3467,119,13467,13466,291,3462,13465,1978],"class_list":["post-1907","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-judgments","tag-amit-rasiklal-shah","tag-family-court","tag-income-tax-returns","tag-interim-maintenance","tag-maintenance","tag-mr-rakesh-k-agarwal","tag-ms-t-f-irani","tag-mumbai","tag-smt-roshan-dalvi","tag-sonal-amit-shah","tag-writ-petition"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1907","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1091"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1907"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1907\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1907"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1907"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mynation.net\/docs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1907"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}