Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1447 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013

Hal Offshore Ltd vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 June, 2022

The Karnataka High Court adverted to the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra) and held that when an alternative remedy is available and the petition is entertained by this Court, the petitioner later cannot approach the appellate authority by way of appeal or revision as the case may and thus the petitioner would be to its disadvantage. For this reason also entertaining the petition without allowing the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy is not in the best interest of the petitioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 1 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Dr. Arjun Singh Baloda S/O Late Shri ... vs Shri Karan Narendra Agricultural ... on 27 October, 2025

34. The judgment in case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chabbil Das Agarwal (supra) pertains to issue of assessment of income tax under Section 148 of Income Tax Act whereas in case of South Indian Bank Ltd and Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Phillip (supra) the matter pertains to (Uploaded on 04/11/2025 at 05:11:29 PM) (Downloaded on 07/11/2025 at 11:44:16 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:43122] (20 of 29) [CW-11167/2025] commercial transaction in relation to the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. While considering the provisions of law in both the cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that there were a creation of a statutory tribunal under the Act to exercise the power of authority to adjudicate the dispute, and direct invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial and income tax matters were discouraged. Thus, both the judgments are not applicable in the facts of the case, as this is not a case of commercial transaction; rather, the petitioner is an employee of a State-funded University established under the Act of 2013.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - A K Jain - Full Document

High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh vs State Of Haryana on 16 September, 2022

33. Apart from the above perspective, the Act of 2015 provides complete machinery for the person aggrieved of any action taken by the Assessing Officer and the said person could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had the adequate remedy open to him by way of an appeal to the Commissioner of Appeals. The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In the present case, neither have the Petitioners described the available Page 44 of 46 WP(C) No. 802/2021 Along with connected Matters alternate remedy under the Act of 2015 as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the Writ jurisdiction of this Court nor have they ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons before the Court so as to enable it to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in tune with the facts and circumstances of the case. All the contentions of the Petitioners, as raised in these Petitions, including the issue of jurisdiction, applicability or otherwise of the act, can very conveniently be dealt with by the Appellate Authority in tune with the mandate of Sections 15 and 17 of the Act of 2015. Reference, in this behalf, can be had to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled 'Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal' reported as '(2014) 1 SCC 603', as cited by the learned Counsel representing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - A Magrey - Full Document

M/S.Hyundai Motor India Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 July, 2018

When in a fiscal statute, hierarchy of remedy of appeals are provided, the party has to exhaust them instead of seeking relief by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as held in Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, ((2014) 1 SCC 603), the Court will have to take into consideration of the legislative intent enunciated in the enactment in such cases. It is not as if the alternative remedy is neither efficacious nor effective. In the above said judgment, the Supreme Court held as under:
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joshi Technologies International vs Union Of India & on 16 June, 2016

"11. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
Gujarat High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - H Devani - Full Document

M/S Basuki Exports & Anr vs The State Bank Of India on 12 March, 2015

11. Though, admittedly, the impugned judgments and orders/ certificates passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal are appealable in terms of Section 20 of the Act, 1993, but the learned Patna High Court CWJC No.13773 of 2009 dt.12-03-2015 10/12 counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, by referring to the recent judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (Supra) submitted that in view of the principles laid down there, the present writ petitions are maintainable and the non-availing of alternative remedies may not be treated as a bar for getting the issues decided in the present proceeding. I am afraid, the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners are not only misconceived, rather contrary to the judicial pronouncements of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Before reproducing relevant portion of paragraphs- 11 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein law has been laid down on this subject, it would be appropriate to notice that in that case the order passed by the High Court of Sikkim in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without asking the petitioner of that case to avail of the alternative forum was set aside by the Hon‟ble Apex Court with liberty to file an appropriate petition/ appeal against the order passed by the statutory authorities. Relevant portion of paragraphs 11 and 15 laying down ratio on these issues are reproduced herein below, which read as follows:-
Patna High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - B P Verma - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next