| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 265 2000 SLD 265 2000 PTD 770 (1998) 232 ITR 367 |
Madras High Court
W. A. No. 363 of 1996, decision dated: 22-08-1997
A.R. LAKSHMANAN AND M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, JJ
S.V. Subramanian for Kala Ramesh for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent.
W. A. No. 363 of 1996, decision dated: 22-08-1997
A.R. LAKSHMANAN AND M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, JJ
S.V. Subramanian for Kala Ramesh for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent.
COMMISSIONER OF IncomE taxvsSITALAKSHMI MILLS LIMITED
Law: Income Tax Act, 1961
Section: 263
(a) Income-tax-----Writ---Revision---Notice---Writ petition filed against notice of revision without filing objections to notice---Not maintainable---Constitution of India, Art. 226---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.263. (b) Income-tax-- ----Writ---Revision---Writ petition against revision notice---Interim order on petition permitting proceedings on notice to continue but with direction that order not to be given effect ---Assessee participating in proceedings pursuant to interim order---Writ petition not maintainable---Direction for communication of revision order to assessee to enable filing of appeal---Constitution of India, Art.226---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.263. The Assessing Officer, while making the assessment for the assessment year 1982.83 by his assessment order passed on March 25, 1985, inter alia, omitted to allow depreciation on the staple fibre yarn machinery used by the petitioner, though he had in the said order decided to grant depreciation at 15 percent. on the said machinery. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order to tire Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who allowed the claim. By consequential order dated December 11, 1985, the Assessing Officer granted depreciation on staple fibre yarn machinery at 15 percent. The Commissioner, in exercise of powers of revision suo motu, issued notice dated February 24, 1987, proposing to revise the assessment and grant only, 10 percent. depreciation on the staple fibre yarn machinery. The assessee did not file objections to the notice but filed a writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court directed that the order pursuant to the notice may be passed but it shall not be given effect to until the disposal of the writ petition. Pursuant to the direction, a director of the assessee appeared before the officer and he also argued the matter and placed materials in support the assessees claim. The officer ultimately passed an order modifying the assessment by restricting the depreciation on staple fibre manufacturing machinery to 10 percent. The order of the Commissioner was passed on March 21, 1988, though it was not communicated to the assessee. On July 28, 1989,…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492