Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Article 265 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 244A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 240 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Indglonal Investment&Finance ... vs Income Tax Officer Ward No.11(4) ... on 3 June, 2011
16. Even otherwise also, reliance can be placed to the latin maxim
"jure naturae aequum est, neminem cum alterius detrimento, et
injuria fieri locupletioremit" which translates to and settles the
position that by natural law, it is just that no one should be enriched by
another's loss or injury. Put otherwise, no one can be unjustly
enriched at the expense of others. It is pertinent to refer to the decision
of the Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Indglonal
Investment and Finance Ltd. v. ITO [2011 SCC OnLine Del 2609],
wherein, it was held that:-
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
―6. Article 265 and a claim for refund for violation of the
principles underlying the said article or under the general
principles of equity, justice and good conscience as well as the
statutory provisions in tax enactments was settled by the
Constitutional Bench decision of nine judges in Mafatlal
Industries Ltd. v. Union of India 111 STC 467 (SC) ; (1997) 5
SCC 536. The said decision interprets article 265 of the
Constitution and lays down legal principles, which we feel are
equally applicable to the arguments raised. The Supreme Court
in the said case has held that article 265 mandates that no tax
can be levied or collected except by authority of law, which
means that tax collected contrary to law has to be refunded;
but the question is--when a tax is considered to have been levied
and collected without authority of law.‖
[Emphasis supplied]
Union Of India Tr.Dir.Of I.T vs M/S Tata Chemicals Ltd on 26 February, 2014
17. With regards to the contention raised by learned counsel for the
respondents regarding the refund of the disputed amount only to the
payee, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. [(2014) 6
This is a digitally signed order.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
M/S.Sunflag Iron & Steel Co.Ltd vs The Central Board Of Direct Taxes & One ... on 19 January, 2016
18. Reference can also be made to the decision of the Division
Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sunflag Iron and
Steel Co. Ltd. v. CBDT [2016 SCC OnLine Bom 195], wherein in a
similar set of circumstances, whereby, the resident/deductor has paid
the tax in lieu of anticipated liability, the Court held as under:-