IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.R. No.17 of 1991 Date of decision: 02.11.2006 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak. -----Applicants Vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Sushila Rathee, Rohtak. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the revenue. ----- ORDER: Following question of law has been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, arising out of its order dated 2.5.1990 in I.T.A. No.5559/Del/1987 in respect of assessment year 1983-84:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by holding that that income from paying clinic should be taxed under the head ‘profit or gains of business or profession’ and not under the head ‘salary’?” We find that the issue stands covered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee by the judgment of this Court in B.M. Parmar v. C.I.T. (1999) 235 ITR 679. In our recent judgment dated 5.9.2006 in I.T.R. No.15 of 1995 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Haryana, Rohtak v. Kamal Kishore Batra DO, LIC, Kalanaur, Rohtak), we have answered the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, the question referred is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 02, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) ashwani JUDGE P