Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANMOHAN, NAVIN CHAWLA
KLJ Plasticizers Limited – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation-2 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing and withdrawal of appeal under income tax act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against the dismissal of the revision petition. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. application of limitation act in this case. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. conclusion and remand to cit for merit decision. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral):
C.M.No.9141/2022
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3137/2022
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 27th March, 2021 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) -2 [`CIT(IT)'], New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the Respondent to consider the Revision Petition filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Section 264 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (`the Act') on merits after condoning the delay in preferring the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that vide the impugned order the Revision petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 264 of the Act was arbitrarily dismissed on the ground of limitation. He states that the Petitioner under the bona fide mistake of law and relying on previous orders passed b
Time spent pursuing an erroneous appeal is excluded under the Limitation Act, allowing for the timely filing of a subsequent Revision Petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to exclude the time spent in prosecuting the appeal without jurisdiction, and the entitle....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to exclude time spent in prosecuting a proceeding bona fide in a court without jurisdicti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of the application for revision under Section 264 was erroneous in law, and the claim of the petitioner under Section 10(38) sho....
The Court emphasized the importance of considering submissions and the correctness of the same before making a decision under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The court upheld administrative discretion of tax authorities and directed prompt resolution of appeals, emphasizing the separation of case merits from procedural timelines.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
