Revenue challenged Tribunal orders under Section 260A of Income Tax Act. Due to tax effect being below Rs.50 lakhs limit per CBDT Circular No.3/2018, Court dismissed appeal as not pressed while reserving legal questions.
Appeals dismissed as not pressed; substantial questions of law kept open.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.03.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Tax Case Appeal Nos.1450 and 1451 of 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax * Central-II(1), Chennai. Appellant in both TCAs.
E.Amul Prakash & Others Respondent in both TCAs. L/H.SRI K.Easwarappa, 14,Naval Hospital Road, Priampet, Chennai. 3.
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 23.07.2010 made in M.A.131/Mds/2003 (in IT (SS) A.No.66 & 117/Mds/2002) and M.A.132/Mds/2003 (in IT (SS) A.No.66/ Mds/2002) respectively, in respect of Block Assessment Period 1988-89 to 1998-99.
For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriram
(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)
These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 23.07.2010 in M.A.131/Mds/2003 (in IT (SS) A.No.66 & 117/Mds/2002) and M.A.132/Mds/2003 (in IT (SS) A.No.66/ Mds/2002) by raising the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in
dismissing the petition of the revenue on the ground of review of original order ? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the petition of the assessee on the ground that proviso to Explanation 1 to Section 158 B.E. was not in the statute when the assessment was done ?"
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner of Income Tax Central-II(1), Chennai
E.Amul Prakash & Others
VINEET KOTHARI
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
