Skip to content


Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Ayodhya Kumari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberApplication in respect of D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 29 of 1971
Judge
Reported in[1985]156ITR898(Raj)
AppellantCommissioner of Income-tax
RespondentAyodhya Kumari
Appellant Advocate B.R. Arora, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Sudesh Gupta, Adv.
Excerpt:
- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect -..........1 and 4. in view of the findings recorded, there appears to be some error in the para above the penultimate para of the judgment. the. error is rectified. in the third line of the para above the penultimate para, after the words 'against the assessee', the words 'and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue respectively ' shall be added. after correction, the para above the penultimate para of the judgment will read as under:'we, therefore, answer questions nos. 1 and 4, in the negative, i. e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue respectively. questions nos. 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.it is not necessary to answer question no. 5. '3. let the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This comes up for orders on the application which was filed by thelearned counsel for the asscssee on February 4, 1985.

2. We have perused the judgment dated February 3, 1984 [reported in and also the findings recorded on questions Nos. 1 and 4. In view of the findings recorded, there appears to be some error in the para above the penultimate para of the judgment. The. error is rectified. In the third line of the para above the penultimate para, after the words 'against the assessee', the words 'and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue respectively ' shall be added. After correction, the para above the penultimate para of the judgment will read as under:

'We, therefore, answer questions Nos. 1 and 4, in the negative, i. e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue respectively. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

It is not necessary to answer question No. 5. '

3. Let the aforesaid correction be made in the judgment and the Tribunal be informed accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //