Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
The Registrar Of Co-Operative ... vs N.P.Paulose on 4 April, 2017 cites

Hirday Narain vs Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly on 21 July, 1970

In this connection, we may refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of L. Hirday Narain v. Income-Tax Officer, Bareilly [AIR 1971 SC 33]. In that case, in terms of Sec.35 of the W.A. No.740 of 2017 -: 8 :- Income Tax Act, 1922, which is in pari materia to Sec.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee had made an application to the officer for rectification of an order in a concluded assessment proceedings. The Income Tax Officer holding that the Act provided that the Income Tax Officer "may" rectify any mistake apparent on the record, the power being discretionary, refused to exercise the power. A writ petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on the ground that the power being purely discretionary, no mandamus could issue and the Officer could not be faulted in refusing to exercise the discretion. On appeal, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and this is what they held :
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 318 - J C Shah - Full Document

All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay City on 4 September, 1953

11. There was an obligation as held above upon the Registrar to nominate two persons. Having failed to nominate two persons, he had failed to discharge his duty. He had faulted in exercise of his power. Can he be permitted to use this default, of his own, as against the right asserted by the committee for its continuance? The answer is to be found in what was said by the then Chief Justice Chagla in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd., Assessee v. Commr. of Income Tax, Bombay City [AIR 1954 Bombay 232] in the following words :-
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 133 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1