The Bombay High Court, at the instance of the assessee, returned a reference u/s 256(1) IT Act unanswered due to lack of proof that the notice was served on the Revenue, leaving the legal questions open for future consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1021.itr-16.00.doc
Sbw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.16 OF 2000
Banque Nationale De Paris ..Applicant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City-III, Mumbai. ..Respondent
..Respondent
Mr. Harinder Toor i/b. Crawford Bayley & Co.`` for the Applicant.
CORAM: M. S. SANKLECHA & A. K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2016
P.C.:
This Reference under Section 256(1)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) seeks our opinion on two substantial questions of law as framed by it. However, Mr. Toor, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-assessee very fairly states that he is not in a possession of evidence to show that the Reference has been served upon the Revenue. This Reference is of the year 2000. In terms of Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, the party at whose instance a Reference has been made to this Court is required to take all such steps as are necessary to have a notice issued and served upon the opposite party within two months from the receipt of notice of
2
1021.itr-16.00.doc
the Reference from the High Court.
Wadhwa
Banque Nationale De Paris
Commissioner of Income Tax Bombay City-III, Mumbai
M. S. Sanklecha
A. K. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
