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. Rajasthan Construction Co.

Cit vs Rajasthan Construction Co.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Sep 10, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/772388

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
Rajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Appeal No. 61 of 2001 10 September 2001
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

Counsels: Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Revenue Anjay Kothari, for the Assessee Head Note: INCOME TAX Appeal (High Court)--SUBSTANTIAL QUESITON OF LAWRegistration of firm Catch Note: Question whether Tribunal was justified in law in allowing registration to assessee firm when assessee-firm itself had filed return in ...

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate Sandeep Bhandawat, <i>for the Revenue</i> Anjay Kothari, <i>for the Assessee</i>

Respondent

Rajasthan Construction Co.

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)172CTR(Raj)713

Excerpt

counsels: sandeep bhandawat, for the revenue anjay kothari, for the assessee head note: income tax appeal (high court)--substantial quesiton of lawregistration of firm catch note: question whether tribunal was justified in law in allowing registration to assessee firm when assessee-firm itself had filed return in status of urf, and case was of fresh registration of firm, is a substantial question of law. ratio: question as to whether tribunal was justified in law in allowing registration to assessee firm when assessee-firm itself had filed return in status of urf, and case was of fresh registration of firm, is a substantial question of law. application: also to current assessment year. decision: in favour of revenue. income tax act 1961 s.260a in the rajasthan high court n.n. mathur & o.p. bishnoi, jj. - by the courtit is argued by mr. bhandawat, learned counsel for the department, that in order to get benefit of registration, the assessee should proceed in strict confirmity with the relevant provisions of the act. he has placed reliance on the decision of this court in udaipur soap factory v. cit (1987) 167 itr 613 .2. on the other hand, mr. kothari, counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, submits that it is entirely a question of fact and no substantial question of law arises in this case. he has placed reliance on the decision of this court rendered in addl. cit v. bhatia mahajan construction , cit v. swaroop chand kojuram barmer . he has also placed reliance on cit v. mohd. bux shokat ali (2001) 167 ctr (raj) 192.3. mr. bhandawat submits that this court in kankaria textiles v. cit has considered it to be a question of law. considering all facts and circumstances, in our view following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court.1. whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal is justified in law in allowing registration to assessee-firm whereas the assessee-firm itself had filed return in the status of urf, and this case was of fresh registration of the firm.admit.issue notice.mr. kothari waives the notice for respondent-assessee.

Full Judgment

By the Court

It is argued by Mr. Bhandawat, learned counsel for the department, that in order to get benefit of registration, the assessee should proceed in strict confirmity with the relevant provisions of the Act. He has placed reliance on the decision of this court in Udaipur Soap Factory v. CIT (1987) 167 ITR 613 .

2. On the other hand, Mr. Kothari, counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, submits that it is entirely a question of fact and no substantial question of law arises in this case. He has placed reliance on the decision of this court rendered in Addl. CIT v. Bhatia Mahajan Construction , CIT v. Swaroop Chand Kojuram Barmer . He has also placed reliance on CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (2001) 167 CTR (Raj) 192.

3. Mr. Bhandawat submits that this court in Kankaria Textiles v. CIT has considered it to be a question of law. Considering all facts and circumstances, in our view following substantial question of law arises for consideration of this court.

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in allowing registration to assessee-firm whereas the assessee-firm itself had filed return in the status of URF, and this case was of fresh registration of the firm.

Admit.

Issue notice.

Mr. Kothari waives the notice for respondent-assessee.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial