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. Mittal Casting Ltd.

Cit vs Mittal Casting Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided May 08, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/710634

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 Appeal No. 25 of 2000 8 May 2002
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

In the Delhi High Court Chief Justice & A.K. Sikri, J. -

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate Sanjeev Khanna, for the Revenu

Respondent

Mittal Casting Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In
[2002]124TAXMAN11(Delhi)

Excerpt

in the delhi high court chief justice & a.k. sikri, j. - this appeal has been directed at the instance of the revenue under section 260a of the income tax act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the question which has been raised by the appellant is as to whether a disputed electricity bill which is pending before this court in a writ petition would be statutory liability or a contractual liability. the assessing officer held that the claim of the assessed would amount to revenue expenditure. notice of the assessment, however, had been issued by the successor assessing officer purported to be on the ground that a contractual liability cannot be said to be revenue expenditure. a finding of fact, however, has been arrived at by the learned tribunal that the view taken by the assessing officer merely a change of opinion from that of the assessing officer making the original assessment. the question whether a mere change of opinion can be a ground for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the act fell for consideration before the full bench of this court in kelvinator of india ltd v. cit (itc no. 4 of 2000). the full bench by its judgment dated 19-4-2002 has held that mere change of opinion would not be a ground for initiating a proceeding for reassessment. in view of the aforementioned finding of fact arrived at by the learned tribunal, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.2. this appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Full Judgment

This appeal has been directed at the instance of the revenue under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The question which has been raised by the appellant is as to whether a disputed electricity bill which is pending before this court in a writ petition would be statutory liability or a contractual liability. The assessing officer held that the claim of the assessed would amount to revenue expenditure. Notice of the assessment, however, had been issued by the successor assessing officer purported to be on the ground that a contractual liability cannot be said to be revenue expenditure. A finding of fact, however, has been arrived at by the learned Tribunal that the view taken by the assessing officer merely a change of opinion from that of the assessing officer making the original assessment. The question whether a mere change of opinion can be a ground for initiating proceedings under section 147 of the Act fell for consideration before the Full Bench of this court in Kelvinator of India Ltd v. CIT (ITC No. 4 of 2000). The Full Bench by its judgment dated 19-4-2002 has held that mere change of opinion would not be a ground for initiating a proceeding for reassessment. In view of the aforementioned finding of fact arrived at by the learned Tribunal, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal.

2. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial