Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (1.67 seconds)
Documents citing B.K. Nowlakha And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 19 August, 1991

Shri C. Raman Reddy vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 25 July, 2003

Reacting to arguments submitted by Sri Vankatesan that the decision of third member in Dr. A.K. Bhansal (Supra) inter alia ruled that Tribunal has power to go into the search activity U/s 132 needs and deserves a meritorious consideration, it was submitted that the operation of the entire order in Dr. A.K. Bhansalis case has been stayed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad. Hence, this decision should not be given the meritorious consideration. It was therefore submitted that the answer to the first question should be in the negative.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 102 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C. Ramaiah Reddy vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 25 July, 2003

and Ors. (1990) 182 ITR 149 (Kar) (14) Dr. Pratap Singh and Anr. v. Director of Enforcement and Ors. (1985) 155 ITR 166 (SC) at 174 (15) Southern Herbals Ltd. v. Director of IT (Inv) (supra) followed by Delhi High Court in Shri Ganesh Enterprises (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 210 ITR 786 (Del) (16) Shri Ganesh Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) (17) Sriram Jaiswal v. Union of India (supra) (18) Om Prakash Jindal and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (1976) 104 ITR 389 (P&H) (19) Smt. Pati Devi v. ITO (1999) 240 ITR 727 (Kar) at 727 to 728 (20) B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India (supra) (21) CIT v. Smt Godavari Saraf (supra) (22) Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nair and Anr. v. CIT (supra) (23) Dr. A.K. Bansal v. Asstt: CIT (supra) (24) Microland v. Asstt. CIT (1999) 63 TTJ (Bang) 701 : (1998) 67 ITD 446 (Bang) (25) Colonisers v. Asstt. CIT (1993) 45 TTJ (Hyd)(SB)(TM) 114 : (1992) 41 ITD 57 (Hyd)(SB)(TM) (26) Kirloskar Investments & Finance v. Asstt. CIT (1998) 67 ITD 504 (Bang) (27) T.S. Chandrasekhar v. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Bang) 360 (28) Anita N. Nayak v. Dy. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ (Pune) 533 (29) J.R. Malhotra v. Addl. Sessions Judge (1976) TLR 130 (SC) (30) G.M. Agadi & Bros.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 106 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Iii vs M/S. Shilpi Securities Pvt. Ltd. Etc. ... on 30 November, 2009

Likewise, in B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. UOI (supra) the ITA No. 130 of 2009, etc. Page 17 of 19 restraint orders were held to be invalid for want of approval of the Commissioner which was required to be obtained under Section 132(8)(a) for extension of the restraint beyond 60 days. Accordingly, we decide the question of limitation in favour of the Revenue and as a consequence set aside the judgment of the Tribunal on this ground.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Goldcrest Finance (India) Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 31 August, 2006

46. The perusal of the aforesaid provisions relatable to search and seizure talks of seizure under second proviso to Section 132(1) where it is not possible or practicable to take physical possession of such asset, and restraint order in respect of such other assets under Section 132(3) of the IT Act. Their Lordships of Delhi High Court in B.K. Nowlakha v. Union of India (supra) deliberating upon the provisions contained in Section 132 of the Act and drawing distinction between the two provisions held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 63 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Promain Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 June, 2005

For the similar reasons, we hold that the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. C. Balakrishnan Nat v. CIT (supra), judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Sandhya P. Naik (supra) and judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of B.K. Nowlakha and Ors. v. Union of India (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Del) are distinguishable inasmuch as action of authorization under Section 132(1) was not in dispute before these High Courts. In fact, these judgments were rendered with reference to the action of search party to which we will refer later on. Besides this, none of the High Court judgments holds that Tribunal as an appellate authority can examine the validity of action of authorization of search under Section 132(1) of the Act.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 72 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Late Ananta N. Naik, Through Lr vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 June, 1999

(iii) B. K. Nowlakha vs. Union of India (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Del) The Delhi High Court held that s. 132(3) could be resorted to only if there was any practical difficulty in seizing the item which was liable to be seized. The Delhi High Court furthermore stated in that connection that if there were no practical difficulties then the authorised officer has the jurisdiction and duty to seize the books of account, other documents. money, bullion, valuable articles, etc. found as a result of the search if no explanation was coming forward in respect thereof. The Delhi High Court furthermore commended in that case that the power under s. 132(3) cannot be so exercised as to circumvent the provision of s. 132(1) r/w s. 132(5).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Late Ananta N. Naik, Through Lr vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 7 June, 1999

(iii) B.K. Nowlakha v. Union of India (1992) 101 CTR (Del) 73 : (1991) 192 ITR 436 (Del) The Delhi High Court held that s. 132(3) could be resorted to only if there was any practical difficulty in seizing the item which was liable to be seized. The Delhi High Court furthermore stated in that connection that if there were no practical difficulties then the authorised officer has the jurisdiction and duty to seize the books of account, other documents. money, bullion, valuable articles, etc. found as a result of the search if no explanation was coming forward in respect thereof. The Delhi High Court furthermore commended in that case that the power under section 132(3) cannot be so exercised as to circumvent the provision of s. 132(1) r/w s. 132(5).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar Agarwal vs Deputy Director Of Income-Tax And Ors. on 8 October, 2002

29. He further relied upon B.K. Nowlakha v. Union of India [1991] 192 ITR 436, 440 whereunder the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the order of restraint may not be continued indefinitely. Sub-section (8A) of Section 132 of the Act provides that the restraint order can be continued for a period not exceeding 60 days from the date of the order. But before the expiry of 60 days, for reasons to be recorded, the Commissioner may extend the period.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 11 - A Lala - Full Document
1   2 3 Next