TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruction Co. Private Limited [1992] 193 ITR 330. The controversy pertains to the assessment year 1982-83. Briefly the facts are that respondent No. 2 Delhi Automobiles Limited claims that Rs. 1 crore received on account of transfer of its rights in a hotel project is a capital receipt and not taxable. The case of the Revenue was that it is a revenue receipt and even if it was a capital receipt i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order was served on the Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I and for that reason the application under section 256(1) was barred by limitation. Thus the countroversy in the present petition is whether the period of limitation would commence from service of the order on the concerned Commissioner of Income-tax who has jurisdiction over the assessee or it will commence from service of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not the service on Chief Commissioner. It is the Commissioner of Income-tax concerned who alone has the jurisdiction to file application and it is imperative that it is he who should be served with a copy of order either under section 254 or 256(1). We are in respectful agreement with the said decision of this court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated April 2, 1996, of the Tribunal dismissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
