High CourtsDivision Bench(1996) 01 AHC CK 0088

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Ltd.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 23 January 1996 · Citation: (1996) 220 ITR 455

HON’BLE JUDGES
Om Prakash, J · M. Katju, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Income-tax Application No. 138 of 1995

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 260 words
1.

Though the assessee has been sufficiently served, none appeared for the assessee and, therefore, we have heard learned standing counsel only.

2.

This is an application u/s 250(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue requiring us to direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this court :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the view of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue mentioned above ?

(2) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the relief allowed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(2) ?

(3) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in confirming the reliefs allowed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in respect of additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s 43B ?

(4) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in confirming the directions of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to the Assessing Officer not to charge interest u/s 216 ?"

3.

Upon hearing learned standing counsel and upon a perusal of the record, we are of the view that the abovementioned questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are questions of law and, therefore, we direct the Appellate Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the said three questions only to this court.

4.

The application is partly allowed.