Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 127 (2.16 seconds)
Documents citing Jyotendrasinhji vs S.I. Tripathi And Ors on 2 April, 1993

The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs The Income Tax Settlement Commission on 17 October, 2023

Hence, we hold that sufficiency of the material and particulars placed before the Commission, based on which the Commission proceeded to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty as contemplated under Section 245H of the Act, are beyond the scope of judicial review, except under the circumstances set out in Jyotendrasinhji vs. S.I. Tripathi (supra). 11.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - K Ramasamy - Full Document

Mirje Family Trust vs Income Tax Officer on 10 January, 2000

46. To my mind, it is evident that the decision of the apex Court in the case of ITO vs. Ch. Atchaiah (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case, as per the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Jyotendrasinhji vs. S. I. Tripathi & Ors. (supra), CIT vs. Kamalini Khatau (supra) and Moti Trust vs. CIT (supra), there is a clear option to the AO to proceed against the beneficiaries or the trust and where such option is available in terms of s. 166 r/w s. 161, the Department is clearly barred to proceed against the trust subsequent to the completion of assessments on the beneficiaries. I also find that the decisions relied on by the learned Departmental Representative before the Tribunal during the earlier hearing which are mentioned at para 6 on p. 5 of the learned Accountant Member's order are all distinguishable on facts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central ... vs Income Tax Settlement Commission And ... on 4 April, 2024

(g) The ITSC, as held in Jyotendrasinhji (supra), need not even give reasons. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that even if the interpretation placed by the ITSC on documents is not correct, it would not be a ground for interference since a wrong interpretation of documents cannot be said to be a violation of the provisions of the Act. In other words, the scope of interference is very very narrow.
Bombay High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - K R Shriram - Full Document

Pr. Commissioner Of I Tax (Central)-Ii vs M/S Trent East West Lpg Bottling Ltd. on 9 April, 2024

Hence, we hold that sufficiency of the material and particulars placed before the W.P.(C)7444/2016 Signature Not Verified Page 35 of 37 Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:09.04.2024 17:36:27 Commission, based on which the Commission proceeded to grant immunity from prosecution and penalty as contemplated under section 245H of the Act, are beyond the scope of judicial review, except under the circumstances set out in Jyotendrasinhji v. S. I. Tripathi (supra).
Delhi High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - Y Varma - Full Document

Mathurbhai Bhimjibhai Rudani vs Income

4.2 Per contra, learned advocate Shri K. M. Parikh contended that when an application is made to the Settlement Commission under Section 245D of the Act, the person also gets immunity from any prosecution and entire package needs to be regarded and not only the addition of a particular amount. Again, in the instant case, the Settlement Commissioner has acted in accordance with law by availing the fullest opportunities of hearing to the parties and considering the scope of Settlement Commission and the object with which it was incorporated in the Act, there is a narrow scope for interference and this Court must not intervene to correct any such addition because it is perceived by other side to be on higher side. He urged this Court that the law is well settled in case of Jyotendrasinghji Vs. S. I. Tripathi & Ors. [Supra]. He contended that every quasi-judicial authority needs to give brief reasonings and mere reading of the order impugned would indicate that a valid basis had been made before such additions of Rs. 30 lakhs by the Settlement Commissioner. He has sought to rely upon the decision rendered in case of Mahavir Rolling Mils Private Limited, reported in [(2012) 344 ITR 669].
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Shriyans Pradad Jain vs Income-Tax Officer And Others on 14 September, 1993

19. Mr. Poti, learned Counsel for the Revenue, is right in submitting that in this appeal this Court would not go onto questions of the fact or review the findings of fact recorded by the Commission. As pointed out by this Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi's case, (supra) this Court can interfere with the Commission's order only if it is found to be "contrary to any of the provisions of the Act".
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 33 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Ito 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs Indian Corporate Loan Securitization ... on 17 February, 2017

30. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyothendrasinhji vs. S.I.Tripathi & Ors., 201 ITR 611 (SC), wherein it was held that Sec. 63(1) of the Act does not say that the deed of transfer must confer or vest an unconditional or an exclusive power of revocation in the transferor. The fact that concurrence of the trustee had to be obtained by the transferor/settler for revocation will not make the trust an irrevocable transfer. In such circumstances it must be held that the deed contains a provision giving the transferor a right to re- assume power directly or indirectly over the whole or any part of income or assets within the meaning of s. 63(1)(ii) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 87 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Godwin Steels Pvt. Ltd. on 23 February, 2012

"Mr. Poti, learned Counsel for the Revenue, is right in submitting that in this appeal this Court would not go onto questions of the fact or review the findings of fact recorded by the Commission. As pointed out by this Court in Jyotendrasinhji v. S.I. Tripathi's case, (supra) this Court can interfere with the Commission's order only if it is found to be "contrary to any of the provisions of the Act".
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 4 - R V Easwar - Full Document

M/S. Viva Herba Pvt. Ltd vs The Union Of India on 10 August, 2010

25. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Jyotendrasinghji Vs. Tripathi the writ court is entitled to know the process of adjudication by the Settlement Commission determining the contentions raised by the parties. In the absence of reasons, it is not possible for this court to read the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:15:56 ::: 10 mind of the Settlement Commission. In these circumstances, the order of the Settlement Commission to the extent it rejects the submission advanced by the Petitioner is liable to be rejected. The Settlement Commission was expected to record reasons. Thus the impugned order being in breach of principles of natural justice, we have no option but to set aside the same to the extent it has determined the duty liability of the Petitioner and the proceedings are remanded back to the Settlement Commission for consideration afresh. All rival contentions of the parties on the issue are kept open. The Settlement Commission is expected to pass a reasoned order following the principles of natural justice dealing with all the contentions of the parties with expeditious dispatch at any rate within the period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V C Daga - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next