Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (2.79 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs D. Lakshminarayanaswamy on 24 December, 1997

Sh. Tilak Raj, Katra vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward Udhampur on 4 December, 2017

5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone though the material placed on record. We find that Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathi vide order dated 14th December, 1998 has dealt with the similar issue wherein it has been held that the provisions dealing with the appellate authorities do not bar an appellant from invoking the jurisdiction, if he had invoked revisional jurisdiction even though for invoking revisional jurisdiction, it is a pre-condition that the appellate jurisdiction should not have been invoked. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble Court are reproduced below:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

P.K.Muyeenuddin, Chengalput vs Assessee on 28 August, 2012

9. We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and the case law relied on by the counsels. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable on the ground that the assessee had already approached the Commissioner of Income Tax by way of a revision petition under section 264 and therefore since the assessee had approached the Commissioner of Income Tax under 6 I.T.A. No.631 No.631 & 632/M/ 632/M/12 /M/12 section 264, an appeal will not lie before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. D. Lakshminarayanapathi (supra) held that the Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee notwithstanding his unsuccessful effort at having the order revised could still file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Invoking the revisional jurisdiction could not constitute a bar in filling an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and it is for the legislature to impose such a bar if it consider necessary to do so. Respectfully following the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision, we hold that the appeal filed by the assessee is maintainable though the assessee chose to file revision petition before the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 264 and could not succeed before him.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.G.T. Electronics Ltd.,Coimbatore vs Adit, Cpc, , Bengaluru on 17 June, 2025

No doubt, the assessee vide letter dated 11.06.2016 has waived his right of appeal but Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathi, supra has considered this issue and held that the provisions dealing with appellate jurisdiction do not bar an appellant from invoking the appellate jurisdiction for filing of appeal before CIT(A), even though the assessee had invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s.264 of the Act. The Hon'ble Madras High Court considered this issue and held as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajan Dutt, Jammu ( J&K) vs Assessee on 6 May, 2016

6. Having heard both the parties in the light of material placed before us and also having gone through the consolidated order of the Tribunal, dated 23.04.2014, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has obviously not taken into account the submissions of the assessee and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, relied upon in the case of 'CIT vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathi' (supra) in right perspective, while passing the order. Therefore, these are the mistakes apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we recall the consolidated order, passed by the Tribunal, 4 M.A. Nos. 106, 108 & 109(Asr)/2014 dated 23.04.2014, to decide the above three appeals of the assessee afresh. The Registry is directed to fix the main appeals for hearing on 30.05.2016. No need to issue notice to the parties, as the date of hearing was pronounced in the open court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Mishra, Howrah vs Ito, Ward-40(1), Kolkata on 9 July, 2024

5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) misconceived in dismissing appeal on the ground that the assessee availed the remedy u/s.264 prior to invoking section 246A which could not be a bar in filing an appeal in view of the ratio decided in CIT v. D. Lakshminarayanapathi [2001] 250 ITR 187 (Madras) which was followed in case of M. Jayabalan v. CIT, Chennai-VI [2013] 40 taxmann.com 218 (Madras).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next