COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VIJAY DIXIT

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 1196 / 2010HC Delhi20 August 20101 pages
For Petitioner: SONIA MATHUR
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

This excerpt of the judgment does not contain the Tribunal's decision or the High Court's findings. It only records the admission of the appeal by the High Court on two substantial questions of law and the issuance of notice. Therefore, what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning, the ratio, and the operative directions are not available in this text. No issue was expressly left undecided as the judgment is at the stage of admitting the appeal. The specific amount in dispute is also not mentioned.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). The appeal is preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is Vijay Dixit. The appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated in this excerpt. The core of the dispute revolves around the computation of time periods for the purpose of limitation under Section 153B of the Act, specifically concerning the exclusion of time for a special audit conducted under Section 142(2A). The procedural history indicates that the appeal was admitted by the High Court on specific substantial questions of law, and notice was issued to the respondent. The respondent was represented by 'None'.

What were the issues?

The High Court admitted the appeal on two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal correctly computed the time period to be excluded under sub-clause (i) of Explanation to Section 153B of the Act? 2. Whether, on the facts of the present case, the period allowed to carry out the special audit under Section 142(2A) was liable to be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 153B of the Act? The Appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax, is implicitly arguing that the Tribunal's computation of the excluded time period and the exclusion of the special audit period for limitation purposes were incorrect. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondent, Vijay Dixit, nor does it mention any authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either side in this excerpt.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 153B,Section 142(2A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 1196/2010 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms Sonia Mathur, Advocate. . versus . . . VIJAY DIXIT ..... Respondent Through: None. . CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN . O R D E R 20.08.2010 CM No. 14507/2010 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, application stands disposed of. ITA 1196/2010 The present appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ?Act?) is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the tribunal has correctly computed the time period to be excluded under sub-clause (i) of Explanation to Section 153B of the Act? . ITA 1196/2010 page 1 of 2. . 2. Whether on the facts of the present case, period allowed to carry out the special audit under Section 142 (2A) was liable to be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 153B of Act? . Issue notice. . . CHIEF JUSTICE . . MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 20, 2010 js . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ITA 1196/2010 page 2 of 2. . . 20 $

More judgments on Section 153B

All 671 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →