| Case ID |
d70080b4-2f46-46d3-993e-547c7e67bb67 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
|
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court found that the question of whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing registration to the assessee-firm involved a substantial question of law. The court admitted the appeal and issued notice, indicating that the matter required further examination. The court recognized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for obtaining registration. The decision emphasized that the circumstances surrounding the case were crucial in determining the legal standing of the registration granted by the Tribunal. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the registration of a firm under Section 184 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prior to April 1, 1993. The Rajasthan High Court examined the legality of the Tribunal's decision to grant registration to the assessee-firm, which had filed its return as an Unregistered Firm (URF). The court acknowledged the complexities involved in such cases, particularly regarding compliance with the Income-tax Act. The arguments presented by both parties highlighted the nuances of tax law and the significance of factual determinations in legal proceedings. Lawyers representing both sides provided references to prior case law to substantiate their claims, illustrating the intricate relationship between case law and statutory provisions. The court's decision to admit the appeal indicates a willingness to clarify the legal standards applicable to firm registrations, which is a critical aspect for businesses operating within the tax framework. This case underscores the importance of understanding tax regulations and the potential implications for firms seeking registration. Keywords: Income-tax Act, firm registration, Rajasthan High Court, substantial question of law, legal compliance. |
| Court |
Rajasthan High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Rajasthan Construction Co.
|
| Judges |
N.N. MATHUR,
O.P. BISHNOI
|
| Lawyers |
Sandeep Bhandawat,
Anjay Kothari
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Rajasthan Construction Co.
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 2920,
(2002) 258 ITR 657
|
| Other Citations |
Udaipur Soap Factory v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 613 (Raj.),
Addl. CIT v. Bhatia Mahajan Construction [1984] 149 ITR 148/17 Taxman 326 (Raj.),
CIT v. Swaroop Chand Kojuram Barmer [1985] 154 ITR 660/[1987] 33 Taxman 50 (Raj.),
CIT v. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali [2001] 118 Taxman 712 (Raj.),
Kankaria Textiles v. CIT [1993] 200 ITR 408 (Raj.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
184
|