Home ›

Search Results For: 256(1)

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements


Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 19, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 30, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1988-89
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 256(1): Failure to serve reference as provided by Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court Rules upon the Respondent means that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the reference and the same has to be returned unanswered

In terms of Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, the party at whose instance a Reference has been made to this Court is required to take all such steps as are necessary to have a notice issued and served upon the opposite party within two months from the receipt of notice of the Reference from the High Court. In view of the fact that the applicant assessee has no evidence of having served the Reference upon the Respondent Revenue, we are not inclined to examine the questions of law as raised for our opinion at the instance of the applicant assessee

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 18, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 25, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 1984-85
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 256: While findings of fact found by the Tribunal are final and the High Court cannot reappraise the same, the High Court can take note of facts on record which are lost sight of by the Tribunal and also construe certain facts to be of significance as against the different view of the Tribunal

It is well settled that issues of fact determined by the Tribunal are final and the High Court in exercise of its reference jurisdiction should not act as an appellate Court to review such findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal by a process of reappreciation and reappraisal of the evidence on record. The aforesaid position in law has been consistently laid down by this Court in several of its pronouncements out of which, illustratively, reference may be made to Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [82 ITR 547], Rameshwar Prasad Bagla vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P. [87 ITR 421], Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City vs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd. [68 ITR 200] and K. Ravindranathan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax [247 ITR 178]

Read more ›

Posted on by editor
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 8, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 15, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 268A: Though the low tax effect circular No. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 does not refer to references filed u/s 256(1), it has to be held to apply to references as well in view of the objective of the CBDT to focus only on large tax effect matters

One feature in support of the submission that the Circular be not applied to References could be that the References are opinions sought by the Tribunal on questions of law from this Court unlike statutory appeals filed by the parties, seeking the view of the Courts. However though these References are undoubtedly made by the Tribunal, they emanate from an application by one of the parties before it leading to the order giving rise to the question of law requiring the opinion of the Court. This in practice is similar to the statutory appeal under Section 260A of the Act being filed by a party to the High Court for the reason that, this appeal is not considered as a matter of right of the party but only if the court to which the appeal is preferred is satisfied that a substantial question of law arises and admits the appeal for further consideration. Therefore a pending appeal under Section 260A of the Act is no different from a pending Reference in as much as in the case of a Reference the Tribunal is of the view that a substantial question of law arises either on its own (Section 256(1) of the Act) or as directed by Court (Section 256(2) of the Act) which requires the opinion of the Court, while in a pending appeal under Section 260A of the Act which has been admitted, the Court is of the view that a substantial question of law arises which requires due consideration by the Court. Therefore we construe the Circular dated 10th December 2015 as applicable even to pending References in the same manner they apply to pending appeals

Read more ›