Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
P.K.Muyeenuddin, Chengalput vs Assessee on 28 August, 2012 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs D. Lakshminarayanaswamy on 24 December, 1997

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.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Messrs Mela Ram & Sons vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Punjab on 21 February, 1956

10. Coming to the contentions of the counsel for the Revenue that an appeal dismissed in limine by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under section 249(3) without condoning the delay and admitting the appeal is not an order passed under section 250 and therefore not appealable before this Tribunal, we are not inclined to accept this contention. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mela Ram & Sons v. CIT [29 ITR 607], the Apex Court held that an order passed by Appellate Assistant Commissioner holding that there was no sufficient reason for excusing the delay under section 30(2) of Income Tax Act 1922 [corresponding to section 7 I.T.A. No.631 No.631 & 632/M/ 632/M/12 /M/12 249(3) of Income Tax Act 1961] and rejecting the appeal as time barred is an order passed under section 31 of Income Tax Act 1922 [corresponding to section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961] and therefore an appeal lies through that order to the Appellate Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that it makes no difference whether the order of dismissal is made before or after the appeal is admitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 167 - N H Bhagwati - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. vs P.M. Madhavan Nair And Ors. on 31 March, 1981

In the case of State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. v. P.M. Madhavan Nair & Ors [49 STC 244] and The State of Tamil Nadu v. Singhi Traders [57 STC 209], the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that an appeal lies to the Tribunal against the first appellate authority's order rejecting the condonation of delay in filing the first appeal. In the circumstances, we hold that the appeal filed by the assessee before this Tribunal is maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next