1:»: ma HIGH coum op KARNATAKA »V CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD H H warms THIS THE 96: DAY V PREsENT \ 1. ' ' " THE HONBLE MR.JL§s<§f§e§:', Aafr .3.ex.,gAp'§;::p;i§_ "" THE HONBLE 'J--A$f.§§D, RAHIM BETWEEN: ' 1.
THE’ n”:o.\g_n;i;.ss1′(;:;stE1e–_o§+f_
1Nc.oMETAx, _
KHEMJEBHAI ‘cf;-. _r’u;s;R%<f:1A1. COMPLEX,
C)PP.'{'1IVIL HQSP1f'?AL;..__
BELGAUM590'-9o'1., .
2. f:_:jHE m. cio:s2t_m?3s1c::~:I§;R 0?
V._1§:czs4oE%1TAx(Asx.2.sszvsEN’n
1′ ” « BELGAUM. …APPELLANTS
I ‘V'(BYVSHi’.:’;5l§§A;.fl’riD KUMAR, ADV.)
AND’.
= ” ‘”!’E~I_E ameaum DIS’£’RIC’I’ CENTRAL
‘_ .c_o;QPERA’r1*vE BANK L'{‘D., BELGAUM. MRESPONDENI’
THIS APPEAL §S FTLEE) UNQER SECTION 260-A OF
I.’I’.AC’§’, 1961 ARISING OUT OF’ ORDER DATED 29/08/2095
PASSED IN ITA.NO.10/PNJ/2002 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR
1990-93,, PRAYING THAT THES HONBLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASEB To (1) FORMULATE TI’-QEE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS 0?
LAW STATEI) THEREIN. (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND sET5.A’EIpE
THE ORDER PASSED BY ITAT, PANAII _E.E§NCIIIj”»I.”I’I~I
I’TA.NO.10/PNJ/2002 DATED 29/08/2005 AND g
REMIT THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL =3»-_I§:AjR , ‘i’H E 1. I
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON :IvI’Erw’IN_G: ‘ ‘
I
What’ is In this appeal is the order
passed b’y.__ fhe ‘ Tribunal at Panaji. The
, A’ rejected the application for
‘4I”his Court in an identical case as against
V’ «same assessee has observed that there is no
pifiovision under the Income Tax Act, 1961, which would
‘4 permit the Tribunai to review its own ovder.
3. Following the reasonklg sated mcmfgfi;
appeal also stands dismissed as no sig-bstzantizfiw ‘V
of law arises for consideration.
A
% u *.T11dg§
kmv
Iz1c3g.,:.;.