Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.P.V.S.HOSPITAL (P) LTD., CALICUT versus THE ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S.P.V.S.HOSPITAL (P) LTD., CALICUT v. THE ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT - ITA No. 181 of 2000 [2007] RD-KL 9880 (8 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

ITA No. 181 of 2000()

1. M/S.P.V.S.HOSPITAL (P) LTD., CALICUT
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE ASST. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.C.KOCHUNNY NAIR

For Respondent :SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES)

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :08/06/2007

O R D E R

H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.

I.T.A. NO. 181 of 2000

Dated this the 8th June, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.DATTU, C.J. This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short), against the orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA.NO.733/1993 dated 15.2.1999, for the assessment year 1987-1988.

2. The assessee has raised the following questions, which according to it are the substantial questions of law. They are as under:

"1) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the question whether minimum penalty need only be imposed raised and argued by the appellant must be deemed to have been decided against the appellant? 2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding so when there is no reference or discussion about the minimum penalty in the order? 3) Whether this is a case where minimum penalty need only be levied?"

3. To entertain an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, the court must be satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. The tests for finding whether a substantial question of law would arise or not is explained by the Apex Court in the case of M.Janardhana Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, 273 ITR 50 (SC). Keeping in view the settled legal position, we have gone through the questions of law framed by the assessee. The questions so framed, in I.T.A.. NO.181 OF 2000 our view, does not directly or indirectly affects substantial rights of the parties; it is not of general public importance; and it does not call for a discussion for alternative view. This only means the questions framed are pure questions of facts. Therefore, we cannot entertain this appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/DK.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.