TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 1358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment order? - HELD THAT:- Limitation to invoke jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act in respect of the issues that stood resolved in the original assessment, ought to be reckoned from the date of original assessment. Tribunal correctly allowed the appeals, holding that the assessments are barred by limitation. We find that the order of the Tribunal holding that the exercise of power under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Subbaraya Aiyar. COMMON JUDGMENT Order of the court was made by MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the limitation for the purpose of invoking jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) in respect of items/ income assessed originally and remaining untouched by reassessment, ought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12.2007 and 31.12.2007 respectively. 3. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax issued show cause notices under Section 263 of the Act and passed orders by setting aside the 2 nd assessment orders for the assessment years 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 on 27.03.2009, 27.03.2009 and 27.03.2009 respectively. 4. Challenging the aforesaid orders passed under section 263 of the Act, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dran Finance Ltd. [(2007) 293 ITR 1 (SC)] wherein it was held as under: 25....We therefore, are clearly of the opinion that keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of this case and, in particular, having regard to the fact that the Commissioner of Income-tax exercising his revisional jurisdiction reopened the order of assessment only in relation to lease equalization fund which being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Alagendran Finance Ltd. (supra), does not warrant any interference. 6. Therefore, the substantial question of law relating to limitation is answered against the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed. However, the substantial question of law pertaining to deduction of 10% of cumulative advances under section 36(1)(viia) raised herein, is left open for adjudication in appropriate cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
