Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (1.32 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India And Anr vs India Fisheries (P) Ltd on 9 April, 1965

M/S. Hotel Centre Point, Shillong vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, ... on 13 September, 2019

only takes to a partnership firm consisting of partners who are member of such a Scheduled Tribe. We reiterate that the said provision General Clause Act itself contains a stipulation that "unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context". We therefore decline the assessee's instant argument as well. We make it clear whilst holding so the Income Tax Act is complete code in itself in the nature of specific law which applies at the cost of all the general laws going by the legal maxim "generalia specialibes non derogant" as per hon'ble apex court's decision in Union of India and Another vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... vs Sundaresh Bhatt Liquidator Of Abg ... on 22 November, 2021

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 236 of 2021 11 of 39 b. For argument sake, if it is considered that the Appellant has a right to proceed under Sections 48, 72, 142 and 142A of the Customs Act, then also it will not be applicable because of the overriding effect of Sec 238 of the I&B Code. There is an apparent inconsistency between the provisions of the Customs Act and the I&B Code. Because the Customs Act allow the Appellant to initiate recovery proceedings against the Corporate Debtor by putting to sale the assets of the Corporate Debtor in the custody of the Appellant. This is in contravention to the Code as it expressly bars initiation or continuation of any such proceedings under Sections 14 and 33 and does not provide any priority to the Appellant's debt under Section 53 of the Code. c. When two special statutes contain non-obstante provisions, the later statute must prevail. Thus, the Appellant cannot bypass the mandatory requirements of the Code by unlawfully resorting to provisions of the Customs Act. (Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 3 SCC 71] [Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal & Ors. ((2005) 2 SCC 638) and (Union of India v. India Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965 3 SCR 679)]
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr Nilesh Bharani, Mumbai vs Dcit Cc 4(1), Mumbai on 28 February, 2023

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court after considering gamut of the judicial pronouncements in CTO vs Binani Cement Ltd. & Anr on 19 February, 2014- CIVIL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2003, Union of India & Anr. vs. Indian Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331,334 (SC), CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. (P) Ltd. (1989) 176 ITR 473 (Cal), ITO vs. Shrilekha Business Consultancy (P.) Ltd. [2020] 121 taxmann.com 150 (Hyderabad - Trib.), Ballarpur Industries Ltd 398 ITR 145 (Bombay), UAL Industries Ltd [2013] 31 taxmann.com 111 (Kolkata - Trib.) (TM) approved the said law.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 54 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Executors Of The Estate Of Bhagwan Devi ... on 16 July, 2001

Ltd. [1989] 176 ITR 473, Karnataka High Court in the case of M.L. Vasudeva Murthy & Sons v. Joint CAIT[1992] 198 ITR 426, G.B.Belani v. CIT[1992] 195 ITR 639, Bombay High Court in the case of Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 206 ITR 495, Madras High Court in the case of N.K.R.Narayanwwamy Naidu v. CAIT[1965] 55 ITR 103, Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v.. Fertilisers & Chemicals (Travancore) Ltd. [1987] 166 ITR 823'; Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramkishan Bhojraj[1984] 147 ITR 529 (FB) and by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. India Fisheries (P.) Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 331. Craies on Statute Law, 5th Edition, at page 205, explained this rule as follows :--
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - West Bengal Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 29 August, 2003

"I find that the above provisions (of Section 72) are for 'carry forward and set off of business losses' in general, whereas Section 73, reproduced earlier in this order, deals specifically with 'losses in speculation business'. As to the question that which of these legal provisions will govern the principles regarding carry forward and set off of speculation losses, I find guidance from the principle 'generalia specialibus non derogant' which lays down that the general provisions will not override the specific provisions. In other words, provisions of Section 73, which specifically deal with speculation business, cannot be derogated by the provisions of Section 72 of the Act which deals with business losses in general. As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. India Fisheries (P) Ltd. (1965) 57 ITR 331 (SC). "If there is an apparent conflict between two independent provisions of law, the special provision must prevail". This principle is described in Sampat Iyengar's Commentary on Law of Income-tax (9th Edn., Vol. 1 p. 48) as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 35 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 16 May, 1983

In Union of India v. India Fisheries (P.) Ltd. [1965] 57 ITR 331 (SC), the question as to whether the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913 in regard to the payment of the dividends to the shareholders by the official liquidator as against the claim of the ITO to recover its dues by adjustment of the refunds due to the assessee arose. This is what their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed :
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next