Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 231 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs The Scindia Steam Navigatlon Co. Ltd on 5 April, 1961

Union Carbide India Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 8 February, 1984

It is these issues that the various forums created under the Act, are invited to decide. A refusal to decide the said issues on account of, say, the bar of limitation is embodied in a formal order. An order refusing to decide those issues despite being required to do so is also an order relating to the said issues and the case in which they have been raised. Seeing that it is a principle "well known to law that a relief asked for and not granted should be deemed to have been refused" [per Venkatarama Iyyer J. in AIR 1961 S.C. 1663 at P. 1645-Commissioner of Income Tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co.];
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 18 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Controller Of Estate Duty vs Smt. Shanta Ben Mani Lal Patel on 31 October, 1973

In our opinion, the present case is governed by the fourth proposition of law laid down in Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd.. The learned counsel for the department urged that the case is governed by proposition No.(ii) laid down in Scindia Steam Navigation Company Ltd.. We have very closely examined all the four propositions laid down in Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.'s case and we are clearly of the opinion that the present case is governed by proposition No, (iv). The department did not agitate the ground that there was no evidence that the entire assets and liabilities of the sole proprietary concern of the deceased were taken over by the partnership firm. Consequently, it is not open to the department to agitate this ground before us which was never raised in its application under Section 64(1) of the Act.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 29 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Collector Of Customs vs Diplomatic Foundations on 30 November, 1994

6. We observe that the only point that survives for reference as pleaded by the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the department is in regard to jurisdiction. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel fairly conceded that this question along with the other questions of law formulated in the reference application were neither raised nor discussed in the order of the Tribunal. In such a situation a view can be taken that reference on any question of law would not arise. He pleaded that however the issue of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and can be read into the issues decided by the Tribunal. We observe that the plea is that inasmuch as the issue relating to the benefit of Notification 85/82 is also considered in addition to the question relating to the benefit under OGL under para 98(v) of the Handbook of Procedures 1992-1997, the matter in terms of Section 129C(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 falls within the jurisdiction of the Special Bench. We observe that so far as the reference application is concerned, the scope is limited and reference is provided for against the order of the Tribunal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Under this section the Collector of Customs, or the other party by reference application may require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order. The expression any question of law arising out of such order has been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. reported in 1961 ITR 589, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Ekta Promoters (P) Ltd. on 11 July, 2008

67. Now, coming to the facts of the case of Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. (supra) the assessee company in that case had a ship by the name 'E1 Madina' which was purchased at the cost of Rs. 24,95,016. It was lost as a result of enemy action on 16th March, 1944. Government paid compensation of Rs. 20 lacs on 12th July 1944 and Rs. 23 lacs on 22nd Dec., 1944 for the loss of that ship, depreciation of the said ship was allowed from time to time and its WDV in the assessment year was Rs. 15,68,484. The AO included the difference between those two amounts viz., Rs. 9,26,532 in the total income of the company for asst. yr. 1946-47. The addition was made according to the provisions of 4th proviso to Section 10(2)(vii). If the said proviso is not applied, then the income could not be assessed. Thus, the question arose that the proviso which came into force on 4th May, 1946, whether could be applied by making assessment for asst. yr. 1946-47.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 73 - Cited by 108 - Full Document

N.Ram vs N.Ravi on 1 July, 2011

The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay vs. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.,(supra),on which reliance was placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents will not be applicable to the facts of the present case, as the question of law under consideration in the said case was under the Income Tax Act. Whereas the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court is directly interpreting Section 10F of the Companies Act.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V K Sharma - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Schlumberger Sea Co. Inc. High Court Of ... on 17 September, 1997

13. Mr. Dastur submits in these circumstances it is not permissible for the department to charge the question into a different question at this stage. The question is typed out as a new evidence question even in the petition before us. Mr. Dastur referred us to the high authority of the Supreme Court in this regard and gave us the case of CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. (1961) 42 ITR 589 (SC) . The decision is a decision of a Bench of strength five. It is said in the judgment at p. 609 of the report that a reference compulsorily ordered by the High Court upon the Tribunal is an order in the nature of a mandamus. The Court further said that no mandamus will be issued unless the applicant had made a distinct demand on the appropriate authorities for the very reliefs which he seeks to enforce by mandamus and that had been refused.
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Devinder Singh Son Of Shri Bhagwan Singh vs Union Of India Through on 24 February, 2014

9. We proceed to consider the first plea of res-judicata taken by the respondents. In earlier litigation the challenge was to the order dated 29.7.2009 vide which the applicants were reverted. While taking note of subsequent promotion of the applicants, this Honble Tribunal gave liberty to the applicants to make a representation to the concerned authority for benefit of promotion from 29.7.2009 to 11.12.2009. Thus, the issue was not decided by the Tribunal and it is only when the respondents have taken a negative view on the issue that the applicant has approached this Tribunal in this Original Application. Thus, it cannot be said from any stretch of imagination that the Original Application is barred by the principle of res-judicata. The citation in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay Vs. Sciendia Steam Navigation Co., AIR 1961 SC 1633, is of no help to the respondents and is distinguishable on facts and law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Raipur Vikas Khand Sahkari Vipanan ... vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax on 17 July, 1975

Therefore, their Lordships laid down that it would be only a question that has been raised before or decided by the Tribunal that can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. The learned President of the Board of Revenue has discussed this question in paragraph 4 of his order, dated 24th October, 1969 (annexure B), wherein he has opined that the transaction would amount to a purchase assessable under Section 7(1) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958. There is no doubt that the question was not raised in the form it is submitted before us, nor does it appear to have been decided by the Tribunal. But, that aspect does arise for consideration before us in view of question No. (2) framed by the Tribunal while making this reference. In this connection, we might observe that it is the nature of the transaction that has to be determined by us, which alone will determine the liability of the petitioner-marketing society. Therefore, it may be that another line of argument might have been adopted before the Tribunal as regards the nature of the transaction, but it is open to the petitioner to adopt another line of reasoning in respect of the same question. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the question was raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal by adopting another line of reasoning, but not advancing the line of reasoning that is now sought to be advanced before us. It is always open to this court to consider any other line of reasoning, which may not have been advanced before the Tribunal. Therefore, without even invoking the principle laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 I.T.R. 589 (S.C.), we are of the opinion that the petitioner can certainly be permitted to raise the question, which was raised before the Tribunal and which was specifically decided by the Tribunal. As such, the question does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal and the mere fact that another line of reasoning might be advanced would not detract from that position. Therefore, we permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to exhaustively discuss the nature of the transaction from any angle he likes.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Jayshree Insulators on 8 October, 2004

6.1 So far as the second question with regard to the capitalization is concerned, it appears that this point was also not mentioned in the application for reference. From the order of the Tribunal it also does not appear that this was so raised. If it was raised on the basis of the subsequent amendment which has not been given retrospective effect and was effective from 1995, then the same cannot be applied until it is held to be retrospective in operation in respect of the period prior to 1995. This question, therefore, having not been raised before the learned Tribunal, cannot be raised in view of the decision in Scindia Steam Navigation (supra).
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - D K Seth - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next