High Court at Jodhpur dismissed two income tax appeals. The court held that the dispute was squarely covered by its own Division Bench judgment (2002) 255 ITR 599 regarding the same assessee and assessment years, finding no ground for interference.
The appeals are dismissed.
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 FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
(1) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 11 of 2005
C I T UDAIPUR V/S THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD UDAIPUR
(2) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 13 of 2005
C I T UDAIPUR V/S THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD
Mr. KK BISSA, for the appellant / petitioner
Mr. RAMIT MEHTA, for the respondent
Date of Order : 7.3.2008
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI MANAK MOHTA,J.
ORDER -----
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
These two appeals involve the common question of law as framed vide orders dated 4.4.2005 and 24.3.2005 respectively.
We have examined the judgment of the learned Tribunal, thereby as many as 5 appeals were decided, and these two appeals No.11/2005 and 13/2005 relate to I.T.Appeals No.1264 and 1265 decided by the Tribunal for the assessment year 1990-91, 1991-92, discussion in this regard starts from para 14 of the judgment of the learned Tribunal, and a reading of that judgment shows that after
giving facts, the Tribunal has simply proceeded on the basis of a judgment of this Court in the case of the assessee itself reported in (2002) 255 ITR 599.
We have again gone through the judgment of the learned Tribunal, so also the judgment of the Division Bench reported in (2002) 255 ITR 599.
In our view, the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, and despite best efforts, learned counsel for the revenue could not point out any distinguishing feature on the basis of which it can be said that this judgment is not applicable. In that view of the matter, for the same reasonings, we do not find any ground to interfere.
The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
( MANAK MOHTA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J.
/tarun/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's finding is covered by the Division Bench judgment in (2002) 255 ITR 599 and warrants interference.
Whether any distinguishing features exist to render the Division Bench judgment inapplicable to the instant appeals.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
case of the assessee itselfApplied¶16
(2002) 255 ITR 599
CIT UDAIPUR
THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD UDAIPUR
CIT UDAIPUR
THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD
N P GUPTA
MANAK MOHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
