Acit, Ludhiana vs A.P. Refinery Pvt. Ltd., Malerkotla on 10 February, 2017
Smt Harjit Kaur vs Assistant Commissioner of Income -tax, Sirsa [(2014) 45
taxmann.com 186 (P & H)];
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.31 seconds)Mrs. Harjeet Kaur vs The Commissioner on 14 March, 2014
Harjeet Kaur v. The Commissioner, MCD
In Shri Amarnath Satya v. Shri Amar Nath Satya, (1994) 55
DLT 683, it has been held that the principle that the Court shall
dismiss the suit, even if the defendant did not raise the raise of
limitation, will apply only in cases where limitation is attracted on
admitted facts or facts beyond controversy. The rule is not attracted
when the plea of limitation is founded on such facts as are disputed
without adjudication whereof the Court cannot determine whether the
bar of limitation was attracted or not. In such a case, the party relying
on the bar of limitation has to allege the facts, on proof whereof, the
Court shall apply the bar of limitation.
1