Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Section 392 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Electricity Act, 2003
Section 62 in The Electricity Act, 2003 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Bhai Shamsher Singh And Sons on 20 March, 1989
19. The Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bhai Shamsher Singh reported in 179 ITR 538 while construing Sub-section (4) of 255 of the Income Tax Act 1961 observed on the facts of the said case that since the 3rd Member has not answered the question of limitation referred and the limitation remained undecided and there being no majority decision of the Tribunal on the facts of the case, the Division Bench of the High Court remitted back the case to the Tribunal for hearing of the entire appeal afresh and in accordance with law.
Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By Lrs vs Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors on 7 October, 2003
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has already ruled, what "stand-by" is in the judgment between the very parties, reported in BSES v. Tata Power in . Hence, it is unnecessary to devolve or take upon the said expression herein for consideration.
Section 5 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Hanutram Chandanmul vs Commr. Of Income-Tax on 20 March, 1953
18. In other words, it is impermissible for the third member to take a third view from the two differing views of the Members at whose instance the reference arises. The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, while construing the Section 5(A) of the Income Tax Act, which is in par! materia with Section 123 of the Electricity Act 2003, in Hanutram Chandanmul v. CIT (1953) 231 I.T.R. 505 (Patna) ruled that the correct interpretation would be, the 3rd Member to whom the case is referred may only agree with one or the other differing members and it is not open to him to take a third view.