Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2000 (12) TMI 93

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nst the order of assessment made for the assessment year 1995-96. So far as the assessment year 1991-92 is concerned, the order of the Commissioner is in accordance with the law declared by this court in the case of Reiter Machine Works Ltd. v. CIT [1999] 240 ITR 531, wherein, it has been held that under section 264 of the Act, revisional jurisdiction cannot be exercised if an appeal had been preferred against the order sought to be revised. It was so held having regard to the language of the section which places an embargo on the power of the Commissioner to revise an order "where the order has been made the subject of an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) or to the Appellate Tribunal". In this case, admittedly, the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner. It is the case of the assessee that the need for filing a revision arose only after it was found that the amount received by the assessee for the Candouble was required to be treated as capital gain in the year of receipt and, consequently, the accrued interest on which tax had been paid for the earlier years had been wrongly included in those years as his income. The assessee, therefore, claimed that though he had filed an appeal, after having realised the true position in law, he paid the tax on the capital gain, and the appeal was dismissed by order dated July 14, 1999, of which a certified copy was received in early August. Counsel submits that the delay, if any, is required to be computed only from that date, and not earl....