COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S UBEROI SONS MACHINES LTD.

ITA - 157 / 2006HC Delhi08 February 20061 pages

For Petitioner: P.L.BANSAL,VISHNU SHARMA

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal and formulated two substantial questions of law. The first question concerns the correctness of the ITAT's decision in quashing the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The second question relates to the ITAT's finding that the excess amount payable to the assessee for mesne profits/compensation for unauthorized use and occupation of premises accrued only upon the Civil Court's decree dated 14.10.1998. The Court has not yet decided these questions, as the appeal has only been admitted for hearing. The judgment does not record any findings or reasoning by the High Court on these issues. The operative direction is to list the appeal for hearing in due course.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is M/s Uberoi Sons Machines Ltd. (Respondent). The appeal concerns assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but relates to a re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was quashed by the ITAT. A further issue pertains to the ITAT's finding that an excess amount payable to the assessee towards mesne profits/compensation for unauthorized use and occupation of premises accrued only upon the passing of a Civil Court decree on 14.10.1998. The High Court has admitted the appeal and formulated substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

The High Court formulated two substantial questions of law for determination: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in quashing the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Contentions of the Appellant (Commissioner of Income Tax): The judgment does not record the specific contentions of the appellant regarding this issue. Contentions of the Respondent (M/s Uberoi Sons Machines Ltd.): The judgment does not record the specific contentions of the respondent regarding this issue. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the excess amount payable to the assessee towards mesne profits/compensation for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises accrued to the assessee only upon the passing of the decree by the Civil Court on 14.10.1998? Contentions of the Appellant (Commissioner of Income Tax): The judgment does not record the specific contentions of the appellant regarding this issue. Contentions of the Respondent (M/s Uberoi Sons Machines Ltd.): The judgment does not record the specific contentions of the respondent regarding this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI . ITA 157/2006 . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ..... Appellant Through: Ms.P.L. Bansal with Mr.Vishnu Sharma, Advs. versus . M/S UBEROI SONS MACHINES LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Satyen Sethi, Adv. . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.CHATURVEDI . O R D E R 08.02.2006 . . CM No.1219/2006 Allowed subject to just exceptions. ITA 157/2006 . Admit. The following two substantial questions of law are formulated for determination: ?(i) Whether the ITAT was, in the facts and circumstances of the case, correct in law in quashing the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?? . (ii) Whether the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the excess amount payable to the assessee towards mesne profits/ compensation for unauthorised use . . . and occupation of the premises accrued to the assessee only upon the passing of the decree by the Civil Court on 14.10.1998?? The appellant shall file the requisite number of paper books within three months in accordance with the High Court Rules. Post for hearing in due course along with ITA No.880/2005. . . T.S. THAKUR, J . . . B.N.CHATURVEDI, J FEBRUARY 08, 2006 ga .

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →