Income Tax Appeal v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , Udaipur
High Court
25 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · rhcjodh240618
Parties
Income Tax Appeal v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , Udaipur
Date of order
25 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Income Tax Appeal v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , Udaipur, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR --------------------------------------------------------
INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 33 of 2008
V/S
HINDUSTAN ZINC LTD. , UDAIPUR
Mr. KK BISSA, for the appellant / petitioner
Date of Order : 25.2.2008
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J.
-----
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The only ground given is that in view of theamended provision of Section 251(1)(a) the learnedCommissioner Income Tax had no power to remand back thematter to the assessing officer.
We have considered the submission, and find thatthe provisions of Section 251(1)(a) have undergone a changetaking away the power of remand, and the amendment has beenmade effective from 1.6.2001. A look at the order of thelearned Commissioner shows that the appeal was institutedbefore him way back on 25.4.2001. Obviously, therefore, thesubsequent amendment could not have the effect of adverselyaffecting the appeal of the assessee which was alreadypending on the date of coming into force of the amended
provision.
In that view of the matter, we do not find anyforce in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J.
/sushil/
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.