PTD 1990

1990 PLP 238 (PTD)

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION

Jurisdiction / Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court (India)
Decided Date
Income‑tax Case No. 22 of 1981, decided on 22nd August, 1988.
Honorable Judges
V. Ramaswami C.J. and G. R. Majithia, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1990 PLP 238 (PTD)
Forum / Court Punjab and Haryana High Court (India)
Bench Members V. Ramaswami C.J. and G. R. Majithia, J
Parties COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION
Primary Law Income‑tax‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 238 (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 238 (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the Punjab and Haryana High Court (India) bench comprising: V. Ramaswami C.J. and G. R. Majithia, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 238 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Income‑tax‑

Representation

  • Date of hearing: 22nd August, 1988.

Headnotes / Summary

Reference‑‑Tribunal, deleting income from other sources‑‑Tribunal holding reopening of assessment bad‑‑Tribunal failing to give decision regarding remission of interest allowed by AAC‑‑Such being questions of law are to be referred. Ashok Bhan for Commissioner. Bhagirath Dass and C.B. Goel for Assessee.

Judgment & Decree

Ashok Bhan for Commissioner. Bhagirath Dass and C.B. Goel for Assessee. Date of hearing: 22nd August, 1988. V. RAMASWAMI, C.J.‑‑We are satisfied that the following questions of law do arise out of the order of the Tribunal: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in affirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the addition of Rs. 32,094 made by the Incometax Officer on account of income from other sources? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the reopening of the assessment under sections 147(a) and 148 was bad in law? and (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in failing to give any finding/decision on the second ground of appeal, viz., remission of interest under section 139(8) allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Incometax?" Accordingly, we direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer those questions. The petition is thus disposed of. No costs. Z.S./701/T Order accordingly.