Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)M.V. Rajendran vs Income-Tax Officer And Anr. on 24 December, 2002
2. We have heard various counsel appearing for the
appellants/petitioners and standing counsel appearing for the
respondents. Same contentions raised by the appellants/petitioners
were first decided by one of us, (C.N.Ramachandran Nair, J.) vide
judgment in M.V. RAJENDRAN V. I.T.O., 260 I.T.R. 442. The
provision considered therein was Section 133(6) with amendments
introduced particularly after the inclusion of second proviso vide
Finance Act 1995 with effect from 1.7.1995. This Court held that the
contentions of the co-operative societies that they do not answer the
description of "person" referred to in the Section and that details could
be called for only pertaining to enquiry pending were turned down
based on the amendments. It was held that the powers conferred under
the Section are in the nature of survey by the department and the same
can be initiated against private banks, co-operative societies and even
against nationalised banks.
Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs Secretary, Government Of India And Ors. on 25 February, 2002
The judgment was rendered by this Court
3
without noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in KARNATAKA
BANK LTD. V. SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, A.I.R. 2003 SC
2096 wherein the Supreme Court has held that the power to call for
information can be exercised under Section 133(6) of the Act even if
no proceeding is pending enquiry under any provisions of the Act.
Kechery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax (C.I.B.) on 25 February, 2003
All
what the Supreme Court held is that in such cases, details could be
called for by the officer concerned with the approval of the Director, or
the Commissioner, as the case may be. Following this, the above
judgment of the learned single Judge is confirmed by a Division Bench
of this Court in the decision in KECHERY SERVICE CO.OP. LTD. V.
C.I.T., 263 I.T.R. 161. In view of the decisions above referred, the
questions raised are no longer res integra. Even though counsel for the
appellants/petitioners referred to judgment of the Bombay High Court
in D.B.S. FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD.
National And Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Bombay ... on 12 March, 1977
v. I.T.O., 207 I.T.R. 1077
and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in GRINDLAYS BANK
LTD. v. I.TO., 231 I.T.R. 612, we notice that those decisions are
rendered on Section 133(6) prior to it's amendment in 1995. In any
case, in view of the consistent judgments of this Court and the decision
of the Supreme Court, we do not think there is any scope for
4
interference with the judgments of the learned single Judges upholding
the validity of notices after overruling the contentions raised by the
appellants.
The Finance Act, 2018
1