Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS Respondent: TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES JUDGMENT
Court Name: Madras High Court Judge(s): N. V. Balasubramanian, A. Subbulakshmy Title:COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2000 PTD 3712 Result: Reference answered Judgment JUDGMENT N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J.---Mr. K. Mani, learned counsel undertakes to file Vakalatnamah for the respondent. At the instance of the Department, the following two questions of law have been referred for our consideration under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction to revise the assessment under section 263 after it formed the subject-matter of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income --tax Appellate Tribunal even in respect of matters not contested before them? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax had no jurisdiction under section 263 to revise an order passed by the Income-tax Officer with the approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B?" Accordingly, we answer both the questions of law referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
---
## Page 2
revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.