Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (3.28 seconds)
Documents citing Jayendrasingh Anirudhsingh Jadeja vs Gujarat State Machine Tools ... on 7 April, 2000

Suwalka And Suwalka Properties And ... vs Acit, Central Cirlce, Kota, Kota, ... on 3 October, 2024

Suwalka and Suwalka Properties and Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT S. No. Particulars Page No. Hon'ble Supreme Court 1 Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1954] 26 ITR 775 1-14 (SC) 2 Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) 15-26 3 Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) 27-51 4 Lakhmichand Baijnath V. CIT [1959] 35 ITR 416 (SC) 52-61 5 Tin Box Co. Vs CIT 249 ITR 216 (SC) 62-63 6 AnirudhsinhjiKaransinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat [1995] 5 SCC 302 64-69 7 Radhasoami Satsang vs. CIT (1991) 100 CTR (SC) 267 : (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC) 71-75 Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court 8 Smt. Harshila Chordia vs Income-tax Officer Appeal No. 4 of 2002 NOVEMBER 7, 76-80 2006 [2008] 298 ITR 349 (Rajasthan) Other High Courts 9 CIT vs. Kapil Nagpal, DBITA 609/2014 (Delhi HC) 81-89 10 Goyal Gases (P.)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 88 - Cited by 0 - 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

Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Central vs Soul Space Projects Ltd on 11 December, 2023

(vi) The power/jurisdiction conferred upon a specific authority must be exercised only by such authority; it cannot be abdicated in favour of another Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN ITA 526/2023 & 568/2023 page 8 of 23 Signing Date:12.12.2023 18:16:56 authority even if he is higher in rank than the one in which the authority/jurisdiction is vested. An action contrary to this principle would be void ab initio and nullity in the eyes of law, as it would amount to usurpation of jurisdiction. [See Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, [1995] 5 SCC 302; Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16; The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & Ors., 1969 (1) SCC 3085; State of UP v. Maharaja Dharamander Prasad Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 505; Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaishwal, (2013) 1 SCC 501]
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax Central vs Soul Space Projects Ltd on 11 December, 2023

(vi) The power/jurisdiction conferred upon a specific authority must be exercised only by such authority; it cannot be abdicated in favour of another Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN ITA 526/2023 & 568/2023 page 8 of 23 Signing Date:12.12.2023 18:16:56 authority even if he is higher in rank than the one in which the authority/jurisdiction is vested. An action contrary to this principle would be void ab initio and nullity in the eyes of law, as it would amount to usurpation of jurisdiction. [See Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, [1995] 5 SCC 302; Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16; The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & Ors., 1969 (1) SCC 3085; State of UP v. Maharaja Dharamander Prasad Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 505; Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaishwal, (2013) 1 SCC 501]
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - R Shakdher - Full Document
1   2 3 Next