Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (3.04 seconds)
Documents citing S.S. Jain Sabha (Of Rawalpindi), Delhi ... vs Union Of India And Ors. on 5 February, 1975

Shah E Naaz Judge vs Additional Director Of Income Tax ... on 30 November, 2018

15. The Supreme Court in H.L. Sibal Vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 112 (P&H), Dr. Nand Lal Tahiliani Vs. CIT & Ors. (1988) 170 ITR 592 (All), L.R. Gupta & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. (1992) 194 ITR 32 (Del), Ajit Jain Vs. UOI (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Del) and Madhu Gupta Vs. DIT (Inv.) & Ors. (2013) 350 ITR 598 (Del.), elucidate on compliance and satisfaction of the conditions of sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) to Section 132 of the Act as recorded in the "reasons to believe", which formation of opinion must be in good faith and not mere pretence and subterfuge on the part of the authorities. The Court while examining the said reasons would not adjudge or test adequacy and sufficiency of the grounds, but could go into the question and examine rational connection between the information or material recorded and formation of the belief as to satisfaction of conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) to Section 132 (1) of the Act. The "reasons to believe" as recorded should have relevant bearing on formation of the belief, for the search warrants cannot be issued for making a fishing and roving inquiry. The test and parameters of reasonable man is applied.
Delhi High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 2 - S Khanna - Full Document

West Coast Ingots (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 18 December, 2006

30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany ; Mandal Jalal v. Madanlal (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN 122; S.S. Jain and Co. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) CHN 445; New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India ).
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Jayaswals Neco Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. [Along With ... on 2 July, 2007

30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany AIR 1941 Cal; Mandal Jalan v. Madanlal,; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd.; S.S. Jain and Co. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) CHN 445; New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India ).
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 13 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Lg Corporation And Anr. vs Intermarket Electroplasters (P) Ltd. ... on 13 February, 2006

30. We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action raises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of Forum convenience. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jasbir Sawhany ; Mandal Jalan v. Madanlal (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN 122; S.S. Jain and Co. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) CHN 445; New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India ).
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 23 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Maqsood Yusuf Merchant vs Union Of India (Uoi) Thru. The Secretary on 19 May, 2008

We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany ; Mandal Jalal v. Madanlal (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN 122; S.S. Jain and Co. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) CHN 445; New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India ).
Delhi High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 12 - V Sen - Full Document

Raj Kumar Shivhare vs Assistant Director Of Enforcement, ... on 24 September, 2008

We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. (See Bhagar Singh Bagga v. Dewan Jagbir Sawhany, AIR 1941 Cal 670; Mandal Jalal v. Madanlal, (1945) 49 CWN 357; Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. M/s. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (1997) CWN 122; S. S. Jain and Co. and another v. Union of India and others (1994) CHN 445; M/s. New Horizon Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 126).
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 168 - V Sen - Full Document
1