Cit Vs. Span International

Cit vs Span International

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jan 31, 2003

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/492307

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/492307
Court: Allahabad High Court
Decided On: Jan 31, 2003
Case Number: IT Reference No. 44 of 1983 31 January 2003
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Counsels: B.B. Ahuja, for the Respondent In the Allahabad High Court M. Katju & Prakash Krishna, JJ. - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 [C.A. No. 1/1894]. Section 4; [Sushil Harkauli, S.K. Singh & Krishna Murari, JJ] Acquisition of land Held, Court cannot issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Authorities to ac...

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate B.B. Ahuja, <i>for the Respondent</i>

Respondent

Span International

Legal References

Reported In: [2003]132TAXMAN28(All)

Excerpt

.....to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - this is a reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal was legally correct in holding that the order of the income tax officer had got merged in the order of the commissioner (appeals) and, therefore, the commissioner of income tax had no jurisdiction to revise that order ? 2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal was right in law in holding that even on merits, the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80hh of the act ?' 2. the assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1976-77. for this year the income tax officer allowed deduction under section 80hh of the act and held that all the requirements of the said section had been satisfied.orderm. katju, j.this is a reference under section 256(1) of the income tax act, 1961 in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal was legally correct in holding that the order of the income tax officer had got merged in the order of the commissioner (appeals) and, therefore, the commissioner of income tax had no jurisdiction to revise that order ?2. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal was right in law in holding that even on merits, the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80hh of the act ?'2. the assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1976-77. for this year the income tax officer allowed deduction under section 80hh of the act and held that all the requirements of the said section had been satisfied. the commissioner of income tax was of the opinion that the order of the income tax officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and as such he issued notice under section 263 of the act. he set aside the order of the income tax officer and remanded the matter for a fresh assessment insofar as deduction under section 80hh was concerned. the assessee went up in appeal to the tribunal and the tribunal allowed the appeal following the decision of the allahabad high court in the case of j.k synthetics v. cit : [1976]104itr255(guj) . the tribunal held that since an appeal had been filed against the assessment order, therefore, the commissioner of income tax had no power to revise the order under section 263. at the instance of the department, the above two questions have been referred to us for our opinion.3. in our opinion the first question has to be answered in favour of the department in view of amendment of section 263(1) explanation (c) of the income tax act as amended by finance act of 1989 and as interpreted by the supreme court in the case of cit v. shri.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

M. Katju, J.

This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in which the following questions have been referred to us for our opinion :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the order of the Income Tax Officer had got merged in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax had no jurisdiction to revise that order ?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in holding that even on merits, the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80HH of the Act ?'

2. The assessee is a firm and the relevant assessment year is 1976-77. For this year the Income Tax Officer allowed deduction under section 80HH of the Act and held that all the requirements of the said section had been satisfied. The Commissioner of Income Tax was of the opinion that the order of the Income Tax Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and as such he issued notice under section 263 of the Act. He set aside the order of the Income Tax Officer and remanded the matter for a fresh assessment insofar as deduction under section 80HH was concerned. The assessee went up in appeal to the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal following the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of J.K Synthetics v. CIT : [1976]104ITR255(Guj) . The Tribunal held that since an appeal had been filed against the assessment order, therefore, the Commissioner of Income Tax had no power to revise the order under section 263. At the instance of the department, the above two questions have been referred to us for our opinion.

3. In our opinion the first question has to be answered in favour of the department in view of amendment of section 263(1) Explanation (c) of the Income Tax Act as amended by Finance Act of 1989 and as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd. : [1998]231ITR50(SC) .

4. As regards the second question referred to us, it has to be decided in favour of the assessee since the finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee has complied with all the conditions in section 80HH and this is a finding of fact.

5. In view of the above, we answer the first question referred to us in favour of the department and against the assessee and the second question in favour of the assessee and against the department.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2003 Same Parties Cit vs Span International Same Subject Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation