Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing V. S. P. Subramanian Chettiar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 1 March, 1960

Sbec Sugar Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 24 October, 2007

In the case of V.S.P. Subramanian Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra), the issue before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras was whether the subsequent application filed by the assessee is time barred when the first application filed by the appellant was within the period of normal period of limitation. The Hon'ble High Court had held that subsequent application filed by the assessee is not held to be time barred. In the case of Byram Pestonji Gariwala, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the compromise entered by the Counsel is a valid compromise.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pyrkes Wine Stores vs Fifth Income-Tax Officer. on 9 March, 1984

Both the rulings in the cases of V. S. P. Subramanian Chettiar and K. Veeraswami (supra) dealt with the issue of the filing of an application for reference and not with the issue of the filing of an appeal. There two rulings which were in a different context do not apply to the filing of the appeal before the AAC. It is very clear from the prescribed form of appeal to the AAC (Form No. 35) and rule 45(2) that in the case of a firm the prescribed form of a firm the prescribed form of appeal, the grounds of appeal and the form of verification appended thereto shall be signed in the case of a firm by the managing partner or any other partner thereof not being a minor. Besides, there are a number of judicial pronouncements which have laid down that the prescribed form of appeal, the grounds of appeal and the form of verification appended thereto should be signed by the prescribed person as specified in rule 45(2) and cannot be signed by an authorised representative. I cannot, therefore, agree with the assessees learned counsel, Shri Bagde, that the appeals filed under the signatures of the assessees authorised representative were valid and ought to have been entertained.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1