2000 (5) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by a decision of this court in CIT v. Arvind Construction Co. Private Limited [1992] 193 ITR 330. The controversy pertains to the assessment year 1982-83. Briefly the facts are that respondent No. 2 Delhi Automobiles Limited claims that Rs. 1 crore received on account of transfer of its rights in a hotel project is a capital receipt and not taxable. The case of the Revenue was that it is a revenue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion commenced from January 24, 1992, when a copy of the order was served on the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I and for that reason the application under section 256(1) was barred by limitation. Thus the countroversy in the present petition is whether the period of limitation would commence from service of the order on the concerned Commissioner of Income-tax who has jurisdiction over the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e on the Commissioner of Income-tax concerned and not the service on Chief Commissioner. It is the Commissioner of Income-tax concerned who alone has the jurisdiction to file application and it is imperative that it is he who should be served with a copy of order either under section 254 or 256(1). We are in respectful agreement with the said decision of this court. Accordingly, the impugned or....