Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. G.S. Dugal

Cit vs G.S. Dugal

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 22, 2004
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707889

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Ref. No. 402 of 1983 22 July 2004
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

Head Note: INCOME TAX Advance tax payment--RECEIPT OF CHEQUE BY REVENUE BEFORE SPECIFIED DATE.Held: Advance tax was paid by cheque on 23-3-1976, which though encased on 5-1-1976, was related back to the date of receipt of cheque by AO and had to be treated as advance tax for purpose of section 139(8). Income Tax Act...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate R.D. Jolly &; S.C. Sharma, for the Revenue

Respondent

G.S. Dugal

Legal References

Reported In
[2005]142TAXMAN91(Delhi)

Excerpt

head note: income tax advance tax payment--receipt of cheque by revenue before specified date.held: advance tax was paid by cheque on 23-3-1976, which though encased on 5-1-1976, was related back to the date of receipt of cheque by ao and had to be treated as advance tax for purpose of section 139(8). income tax act, 1961 s.139(8) in the delhi high court b.c. paaatel, cj. & badar durrez ahmed, j. - b.c. patel, cj.at the instance of the revenue, the following two questions are referred to this court for determination :'1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was correct in holding that the advance tax paid by cheque dated 23-3-1976, which was encased on 5-4-1976 relates back to the date of receipt of the cheque by the income tax officer and has to be treated as advance tax or for purpose of section 139(8) ?2. if the answer to question no. 1, is in the negative, whether the order of the inspecting assistant commissioner was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, thereforee, the commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order ?'2. it is fairly stated by learned counsel for the revenue that question no. 1 is covered by the decision of punjab and haryana high court in the case of oswal woollen mills ltd. v. cit and accordingly it is required to be decided against the revenue.3. so far as question no. 2 is concerned, it is dependent on the answer that may be given to question no. 1. since we have answered question no. 1.

Full Judgment

B.C. Patel, CJ.

At the instance of the revenue, the following two questions are referred to this court for determination :

'1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the advance tax paid by cheque dated 23-3-1976, which was encased on 5-4-1976 relates back to the date of receipt of the cheque by the Income Tax Officer and has to be treated as advance tax or for purpose of section 139(8) ?

2. If the answer to question No. 1, is in the negative, whether the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was erroneous insofar as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, thereforee, the Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order ?'

2. It is fairly stated by learned counsel for the revenue that question No. 1 is covered by the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. v. CIT and accordingly it is required to be decided against the revenue.

3. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, it is dependent on the answer that may be given to question No. 1. Since we have answered question No. 1.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial