REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MOHAN LAL AGARWAL Appellant

V/S

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

IN RE : ST. NAZAIRE,CO. [REFERRED TO]
IN RE SWIRE [REFERRED TO]
DREW V. MILLS [REFERRED TO]
HESSION V. JOHNS [REFERRED TO]
L JANAKIRAMA IYER S R KOOTHANANIAR PILLAI IN C A NO 77 OF 59 VS. P M NILAKANTA IYER:P M NILAKANTA IYER [REFERRED TO]
PATEL CHUNIBHAI DAJIBHA VS. NARAYANRAO KHANDERAO JAMBEKAR ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS. KARAMINGH [REFERRED TO]
PATEL NARSHI THAKERSHI VS. PRADYUMANSINGHJI ARJUNSINGHJI [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR CHANDRA BHAN SINGH VS. LATAFAT ULLAH KHAN [REFERRED TO]
KUNTESH GUPTA VS. MANAGEMENT OF HINDU KANYA MAHA VIDYALAYA SITAPUR U P [REFERRED TO]
BAI SHAKRIBEN DEAD VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. NILMANI SAHU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. COMMISSIONER OF LAND RECORDS AND SETTLEMENT CUTTACK [REFERRED TO]
DWARAKA DAS VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
JAYALAKSHMI COELHO VS. OSWALD JOSHEPH COELHO [REFERRED TO]
K RAJAMOULI VS. A V K N SWAMY [REFERRED TO]
PLASTO PACK MUMBAI VS. RATNAKAR BANK LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI RAM BHUYAN VS. HARI PRASAD BHUYAN [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA ASHRAM EDUCATIONAL TRUSTS VS. DISTRICT JUDGE ALLAHABAD [REFERRED TO]
SETH MANAKCHAND VS. CHAUBE, MANOHARLAL [REFERRED TO]
(RAI) JATINDRA NATH CHOWDHURY VS. UDAY KUMAR DAS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dt. 31st March, 2003, by which the learned revisional authority, i.e., CIT has disposed of the revision application filed by the petitioner-assessee, under Section 264 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1961) being aggrieved by the demand contained in letter dt. 11th March, 2002.

(2.) Heard S/Shri R.P. Agarwal and V.K. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

(3.) While arguing the revision application by the representative of the assessee, it has vehemently been submitted that demand letter dt. 11th March, 2002, had been issued by the assessing authority without any merit. In memo of revision, the said ground had been taken that it was specifically agitated by the assessee's representative. In the impugned order, the revisional authority, instead of dealing with it and deciding it on merit, has brushed it aside saying that the issue had not been pressed.

Click here to view full judgment.

MOHAN LAL AGARWAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address