Search Results Page

Search Results

11 - 20 of 93 (3.41 seconds)
Documents citing Jayendrasingh Anirudhsingh Jadeja vs Gujarat State Machine Tools ... on 7 April, 2000

Santosh Kumar Pandey vs State Of U P And 17 Others on 7 May, 2019

The observations by the learned authors to the same effect in the 7th Edn. were relied upon by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat20. In that matter the appellant was produced before the Executive Magistrate, Gondal, on the allegation that certain weapons were recovered from him. The provisions of TADA had been invoked. The appellant's application for bail was rejected. A specific point was taken that the DSP had not given prior approval and the invocation of TADA was non est. The DSP, instead of granting prior approval, made a report to the Additional Chief Secretary, and asked for permission to proceed under TADA. The Court in paras 13, 14, 15 has held this to be a clear case of "dictation", and has referred to Wade and Forsyth on Surrender, Abdication and Dictation."
Allahabad High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Goodwill Fabrics Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Acit, , Bhilwara on 22 May, 2019

33. In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we can see that only based on the "recommendation" of the ADIT (Inv.) dated 24.03.2011, the AO has initiated report for sanction u/s 151 and issued notice, which is nothing but "borrowed belief". It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302, that "if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it 17 ITA 525/JP/2018_ M/s Goodwill Fabrics P Ltd. Vs ACIT according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authority's instructions, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion all together." It has to be kept in mind that satisfaction recorded should be "independent" and "not borrowed" or "dictated" satisfaction. Thus, we find there was no fresh tangible material for the AY 2004- 05 with the AO and he has simply issued notice on borrowed belief of ADIT (Inv.).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 45 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Bharat Sudambhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2020

29.15 In the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma (supra), the Apex Court referred to the judgment in the case of Anirudhusinhji Jadeja (supra), wherein it has been held that a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction must exercise it according to its own discretion; discretion exercised under the directions or instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether. Executive Officers may in exercise of their statutory discretions take into account considerations of public policy and in some context policy of a minister or the government as a whole when it is relevant, being a relevant factor in weighing the policy, but they are not absolved from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases, unless explicit statutory provision has been made for instructions by a superior to bind them. Relevant extracts of paragraphs 15 and 16 read thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 1 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Future Gaming And Hotel Services Pvt. ... vs The State Of Arunachal Pradesh And 3 Ors on 17 February, 2021

In Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 302 the DSP did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 20-A(1) of TADA. He abdicated his jurisdiction and referred the matter to the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department on 17.03.1995 requesting for permission to invoke the provisions of Section 3 and 5 of TADA. On 18.03.2995, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department gave sanction/ consent to apply provision of TADA. The Apex Court held that the case was of exercising power on the basis of external dictation though the dictation came on the prayer of the DSP, he did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by the Statute and did not grant approval of recording of information under TADA in exercise of his discretion.
Gauhati High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - P K Deka - Full Document

Shree Kadod Dudh Utpadka Sahkari Mandli ... vs State Of Gujarat on 6 November, 2020

29.15 In the case of Tarlochan Dev Sharma (supra), the Apex Court referred to the judgment in the case of Anirudhusinhji Jadeja (supra), wherein it has been held that a statutory authority vested with jurisdiction must exercise it according to its own discretion; discretion exercised under the directions or instruction of some higher authority is failure to exercise discretion altogether. Executive Officers may in exercise of their statutory discretions take into account considerations of public policy and in some context policy of a minister or the government as a whole when it is relevant, being a relevant factor in weighing the policy, but they are not absolved from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases, unless explicit statutory provision has been made for instructions by a superior to bind them. Relevant extracts of paragraphs 15 and 16 read thus:
Gujarat High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 0 - S K Vishen - Full Document

Amit Garg , Delhi vs Ito, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi on 18 February, 2019

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―D‖: NEW DELHI ITA No. 2835/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Tripat Kaur Date of pronouncement 09/10/2018 "...If authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the 10 | P a g e doing of the Act authorized under other circumstances than those as defined. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to perform an action on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should do that action. We draw support from various decision of Honorable High courts in 346 ITR 343 ( Bom) , 345 ITR 223 ( del ) and also of the Honourable supreme court Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 72 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Surender Kumar, New Delhi vs Ito, Ward-39(2), New Delhi on 18 February, 2019

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ―D‖: NEW DELHI ITA No. 2835/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Tripat Kaur Date of pronouncement 09/10/2018 "...If authority is given expressly by affirmative words upon a defined condition, the expression of that condition excludes the 11 | P a g e doing of the Act authorized under other circumstances than those as defined. It is also established principle of law that if a particular authority has been designated to perform an action on any particular issue, then it is that authority alone who should do that action. We draw support from various decision of Honorable High courts in 346 ITR 343 ( Bom) , 345 ITR 223 ( del ) and also of the Honourable supreme court Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 where in hon. Supreme court held as under :-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 75 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 23 June, 2021

39. 9. The Apex Court in the case of AnirudhSinhji KaranSinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 has held that if a statutory authority has been vested with jurisdiction, he has to exercise it according to its own discretion. If discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authorities instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
Previous   1 2   3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next