Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.85 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore vs Smt.R.Sharadamma on 3 April, 1996

Chandradeep Narayan Singh vs National Highways Authority Of India on 16 January, 2024

18. I have also considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Banglore vs. R. Sharadamma (supra), Om Prakash Agarwal vs. Vishan Dayan Rajpoot and Another (supra) and Neena Aneja and Another vs. Jai Prakash Associates Limited (supra). In the present case, the Additional Collector was seized of the matter, he did not lose seisin thereof an account of change of arbitrator as per new notification dated 21.06.2018 and as per the principle underlined under Section-6 of the General Clauses Act, 1987. The arbitration proceeding held by the Additional Collector cannot be held to be illegal by Patna High Court CWJC No.16226 of 2019 dt.16-01-2024 23/24 virtue of the new notification dated 21.06.2018 conferring the power of arbitration to the Divisional Commissioner. The Additional Collector before whom the proceeding was pending was not deprived of jurisdiction to conclude the arbitration proceeding which was pending before him on the date of coming into force of new notification. The Additional Collector did not lose jurisdiction to continue with the arbitration proceeding pending before him on 21.06.2018 by virtue of coming of the new notification. He was entitled to continue with the pending proceedings and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Additional Collector who has concluded the arbitration proceeding did not lack inherent jurisdiction.
Patna High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M.A. Unneerikutty on 19 December, 1997

R. Sharadamma (supra) referred earlier, there is no scope for holding that the IAC has no jurisdiction. The Tribunal had taken the view that though the reference was made in the year 1975 still the IAC has no jurisdiction. This is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in three judgments referred above. In the above circumstances 1 have no hesitation to hold that the order of IAC was valid and he had the jurisdiction to pass the order of penalty.
Kerala High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vishnu Mohan vs Incharge District Judge And Ors. on 25 November, 2002

In Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Smt. Shardamma (supra) Supreme Court held that it is true that no litigant has invested right in the matter of procedural law, but, where the question is of change of forum, it ceased to be a question of procedure only. The forum of appeal or proceedings, is a vested right as opposed to pure procedure to be followed before the particular forum. The right becomes vested when the proceedings are initiated in the Tribunal or the Court of first instance, and unless the Legislature has, by express words or by necessary implication, clearly so indicated the vested right will continue inspite of the change of jurisdiction of the different Tribunals or Forums.
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Radhey Shyam And Ors. vs District And Sessions Judge And Ors. on 25 November, 2002

In Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Smt. Shardamma (supra). Supreme Court held that It is true that no litigant has invested right in the matter of procedural law, but, where the question is of change of forum, it ceased to be a question of procedure only. The forum of appeal or proceedings, is a vested right as opposed to pure procedure to be followed before the particular forum. The right becomes vested when the proceedings are initiated in the Tribunal or the Court of first instance, and unless the Legislature has by express words or by necessary implication, clearly so indicated, the vested right will continue inspite of the change of jurisdiction of the different Tribunals or Forums.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - S Ambwani - Full Document

Jaipur Drt Bar Association vs Union Of India And Others on 8 September, 2000

In CIT Bangalore vs. R. Shardamma (supra) the Apex Court placing reliance upon the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dhadi Sahu (15) endorsed its earlier view that a legislation which brings about a change in the forum does not affect pending actions unless an intention to the contrary is clearly shown and one of the modes by which such an intention shown is by making a provision for change over of proceedings from the court or the Tribunal where they are pending to the court or the Tribunal which under the new law, gets jurisdiction to try them.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 37 - Cited by 8 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M.A. Unneerikutty on 18 December, 1999

In CIT v. Smt. R. Sharadamma [1996] 219 ITR 671, the apex court held that once the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was seized of the matter, he did not lose seisin thereof on account of deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 274 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner did not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on March 31, 1976. He was entitled to continue with those proceedings and pass appropriate orders according to law.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ramvilas Bajaj vs Ashok Kumar And Anr. on 30 April, 2007

Similar view was taken in Dhadi Sahu's case (supra) and R. Sharadamma's case (supra), and also in the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in K.S. Paripoornan 's case (supra). The ratio in all these cases is squarely attracted to the present cases on hand in favour of landlords, whose rights got crystallized on the dates of filing their respective suits.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 152 - Cited by 9 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Inden Bislers on 1 July, 1998

3. The third question can be disposed of first as the legal position has been authoritatively settled by the apex court in the case of CIT v. Smt R. Sharadamma [1996] 219 ITR 671, wherein the court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who was seized of the matter did not lose seisin thereof on account of the deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 274 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976, and that he did not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on March 31, 1976.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 31 - R J Babu - Full Document

Ramnath Goenka (Decd. By L. Rs.) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 21 August, 2002

2. That question is required to be answered against the assessee, and in favour of the Revenue in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. R. Sharadamma [1996] 219 ITR 671, wherein, the apex court held that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner does not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on March 31, 1976, by virtue of the deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 274 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, with effect from April 1, 1976. The court held that (headnote) :
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 8 - R J Babu - Full Document
1   2 3 Next