1997 PLP 389 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SATYANARAYANA SAW MILLS
| Citation | 1997 PLP 389 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 219 I T R 358 |
| Bench Members | B. P. Jeevan Reddy and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SATYANARAYANA SAW MILLS |
| Primary Law | Income-tax |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 389 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income-tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP 389 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 219 I T R 358 bench comprising: B. P. Jeevan Reddy and S. Saghir Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 389 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SATYANARAYANA SAW MILLS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal from the judgment and order, dated February 4, 1976 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.R. No. 28 of 1975).
Appeal to A.A.C.
Order refusing continuation of registration
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.184(7). An appeal filed by a firm, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against refusal to continue registration under section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable. CIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co. (1992) 194 ITR 645 (SC) fol.
Judgment & Decree
Appeal to A.A.C.
Order refusing continuation of registration
Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.184(7). An appeal filed by a firm, before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against refusal to continue registration under section 184(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable. CIT v. Ashoka Engineering Co. (1992) 194 ITR 645 (SC) fol. A. Raghuvir, Senior Advocate (Ms. Laxmi Iyengar and S.N. Terdol, Advocates with him) for Appellant. This appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of this Court's decision in C.I.T. v. Ashoka Engineering Co. (1992) 194 ITR
645. The question which was referred to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act runs thus: "Whether on the fats and in the circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against refusal to continue registration under section 184(7) is maintainable?" In this case, Form No. 12, seeking renewal of registration was not filed alongwith the return but at a later point of time. The Income Tax Officer refused to condone the delay in filing the said form, against which order the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The question arose whether the said appeal is maintainable. The Tribunal held that it was maintainable which opinion has been affirmed by the High Court. This Court has held in the aforesaid decision that such an order is appealable. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs. M.B.A./1131/FC Appeal dismissed.