Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.54 seconds)
Dwarkanath, Hindu Undivided Family vs Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle, ... on 29 March, 1965
cites
Section 33A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 33 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Board Of Revenue, U. P. And Others vs Sardarni Vidyawati And Another on 6 February, 1962
Committee cancelling the examination results on the ground
that it did not give opportunity to the examinees to be
heard before the order was made in Board of High School and
Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das
Gupta(1), and the order of the Revenue Board made in a
revision petition against the order of the Deputy
Commissioner impounding the document without hearing the
aggrieved party in The Board of Revenue, U.P. v. Sardarni
Vidyawati(2). In all these cases the Government, the
Examination Committee and the Board of Revenue were
administrative bodies, but the acts impugned were quasi-
judicial ones, for they had a duty to act judicially in
regard thereto. The law on the subject may be briefly stated
thus: The provisions of a statute may enjoin on an
administrative authority to act administratively or
judicially. If the statute expressly imposes a duty on the
administrative body to act judicially, it is a clear case
of a judicial act. But the duty to act judicially may not be
expressly conferred but may be inferred from the provisions
of the statute. It may be gathered from the cumulative
effect of the nature of the rights affected, the manner of
the disposal provided, the objective criterion to be
adopted, the phraseology used, the nature of the power
conferred or the duty imposed on the authority and other
indicia afforded by the statute. In short, a duty to act
judicially may arise in widely different circumstances and
it is not possible or advisable to lay down a hard and fast
rule or an inflexible rule of guidance.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, N.W.F. And ... vs The Tribune Trust on 14 October, 1947
But it is said that the Commissioner exercising
jurisdiction under s. 33A of the Act is only functioning as
an administrative authority and all his orders made
thereunder partake that character. Reliance is placed on the
decision of the Judicial Committee in Commissioner of
Income-tax, Punjab, N.W.F. & Delhi Provinces, Lahore v.
Tribune Trust, Lahore(1). There, the Judicial Committee held
that the assessments, which were duly made by the Income-tax
(1947) L.R. 74 I.A. 306. 317, 318.
Sitalpore Colliery Concern Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 February, 1957
Some of the High Courts, under the impression that the Privy
Council held that the act of the Commissioner was an
administrative one, ruled that a writ of certiorari. would
not lie to quash the order of the Commissioner under s. 33A
of the Act: see Sitalpore Colliery Concern Ltd. v. Union of
India(1); Additional Income-tax Officer, Cuddapah v.
Cuddapah Star Transport Co. Ltd.(2); and Suganchand Saraogi
v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta(3). They did not
consider the scope of the revision before the Commissioner
and whether the orders made thereunder satisfied the well
settled tests of "judicial act" laid down by this Court. In
our view, for the reasons mentioned by us earlier, the said
judgments were decided wrongly.
Additional Income-Tax Officer, ... vs Cuddapah Star Transport Co. Ltd. on 24 February, 1960
Some of the High Courts, under the impression that the Privy
Council held that the act of the Commissioner was an
administrative one, ruled that a writ of certiorari. would
not lie to quash the order of the Commissioner under s. 33A
of the Act: see Sitalpore Colliery Concern Ltd. v. Union of
India(1); Additional Income-tax Officer, Cuddapah v.
Cuddapah Star Transport Co. Ltd.(2); and Suganchand Saraogi
v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta(3). They did not
consider the scope of the revision before the Commissioner
and whether the orders made thereunder satisfied the well
settled tests of "judicial act" laid down by this Court. In
our view, for the reasons mentioned by us earlier, the said
judgments were decided wrongly.
Suganchand Saraogi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta. on 10 February, 1961
Some of the High Courts, under the impression that the Privy
Council held that the act of the Commissioner was an
administrative one, ruled that a writ of certiorari. would
not lie to quash the order of the Commissioner under s. 33A
of the Act: see Sitalpore Colliery Concern Ltd. v. Union of
India(1); Additional Income-tax Officer, Cuddapah v.
Cuddapah Star Transport Co. Ltd.(2); and Suganchand Saraogi
v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Calcutta(3). They did not
consider the scope of the revision before the Commissioner
and whether the orders made thereunder satisfied the well
settled tests of "judicial act" laid down by this Court. In
our view, for the reasons mentioned by us earlier, the said
judgments were decided wrongly.