Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.34 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Mcdowell And Company Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer, Nacharam ... on 14 March, 1996
Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified, in the facts and circumstances of the case, applying the principles lay down in the case of McDOWELL (supra).
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, ... vs Arvind Narottam (Individual) on 9 August, 1988
16. We are of the view that the decision in the case of ARVIND NAROTTAM (supra), relied upon by Sri Sarangan, is of no assistance to him. No doubt, in the said decision, both the Hon'ble Chief Justice (R.S. Pathak J.,) who delivered the main judgment and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji who agreed with his view, decided the case on the language of the deed of settlement, which came up for consideration before the Court in the said case. The observation made by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji in the said case, on which considerable reliance is placed by Sri Sarangan, is of no assistance to him. However, it is useful to refer to the said observation, which reads as hereunder:
Sri Mohan Wahi vs Commissioner, Income-Tax, Varanasi & ... on 30 March, 2001
In support of his submissions he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA, v. PIARA SINGH, 124 ITR 40 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. SHAAN FINANCE (P) LTD. AND ANR. in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. ASWATI CORPORATION 2000 (243) ITR 283
in the case of McDOWELL AND CO. LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER in the case of COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-II, AHMEDABAD v. ARVIND NAROTTAM, in the case of MOHAN WAHI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VARANASI AND ORS.,
in the case of MITTAL BELTING AND MACHINERY STORES v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANR. 253 ITR 341 He also referred to us certain passages from Kanga & Palkhivala's at pages 21A,46,48,50,51,53,54 where judgments of various Courts are referred to submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDOWELL (supra) relied upon by the -Tribunal has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case and the Tribunal has failed to consider that it is open to the assessee to have a tax planning and all tax planning allowable in law cannot be equated or treated as the planning meant for evasion of tax.
Workmen Employed In Associated Rubber ... vs Associated Rubber Industry Ltd., ... on 19 August, 1985
In support of his submission that the transaction is a sham transaction, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of WORKMEN OF ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDUSTRY LTD. v. ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDUSTRY LTD. AND ANR., 157 ITR 77 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS v. SRI MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. AND ORS. 63 ITR 609 and in the case of CARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. 146 ITR 8
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala vs Piara Singh on 8 May, 1980
In support of his submissions he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA, v. PIARA SINGH, 124 ITR 40 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. SHAAN FINANCE (P) LTD. AND ANR. in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. ASWATI CORPORATION 2000 (243) ITR 283
in the case of McDOWELL AND CO. LTD. v. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER in the case of COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX-II, AHMEDABAD v. ARVIND NAROTTAM, in the case of MOHAN WAHI v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VARANASI AND ORS.,
in the case of MITTAL BELTING AND MACHINERY STORES v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANR. 253 ITR 341 He also referred to us certain passages from Kanga & Palkhivala's at pages 21A,46,48,50,51,53,54 where judgments of various Courts are referred to submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of McDOWELL (supra) relied upon by the -Tribunal has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case and the Tribunal has failed to consider that it is open to the assessee to have a tax planning and all tax planning allowable in law cannot be equated or treated as the planning meant for evasion of tax.
Carborandum Universal Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 November, 1983
In support of his submission that the transaction is a sham transaction, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of WORKMEN OF ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDUSTRY LTD. v. ASSOCIATED RUBBER INDUSTRY LTD. AND ANR., 157 ITR 77 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS v. SRI MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD. AND ORS. 63 ITR 609 and in the case of CARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. 146 ITR 8
Hari Singh vs Kanhaiya Lal on 7 September, 1999
7. From the reading of Section 260A of the Act it is clear that this Court can interfere against the order passed by the Tribunal, if the Order passed by the Tribunal suffers from errors involving substantial question of law. The scope of interference under Section 260A of the Act by this Court is similar to the power to be exercised by this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While considering the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HARI SINGH v. KANHAIYA LAL, of the judgment has observed as follows:
Panchugopal Barua & Ors vs Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors on 12 February, 1997
11. This Court records in Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami,
"Para 7 - A bare look at Section 100, CPC shows that the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a second appeal after the 1976 amendment is confined only to such appeals as involve a substantial question of law, specifically set out in the memorandum of appeal and formulated by the High Court. Of course, the proviso to the Section shows that nothing shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the Court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law, not formulated by it, if the Court is satisfied that the case involves such a question. The proviso presupposes that the Court shall indicate in its order the substantial question of law which it proposes to decide even if such substantial question of law was not earlier formulated by it. The existence of a 'substantial question of law' is thus, the sine qua non for the exercise of the jurisdiction under the amended provisions of Section 100 CPC."