2004 (9) TMI 64

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r – Held that the Tribunal has not committed any error in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner vacating the order of cancellation of registration passed under section 186(1) - Held that the Income-tax Officer can derive mandate from section 186(1) only in respect of the orders passed under section 185(1)(a and once the provisions of section 185(1)(b) are invoked section 186( .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as follows: The respondent is a firm. For the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer rejected the application filed by the respondent for grant of registration on the ground that it had not filed information about formation of partnership to its constituent and further that the information was given to the State Bank of India, as late as on September 25, 1975, though the instrument was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. He allowed the appeal by relying on a decision of the Assam High Court in the case of Rameswar Goenka v. ITO [1970] 77 ITR 421. The Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal has failed. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the Revenue, and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X