Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.31 seconds)
A.P.Housing Board, Hyderabad vs Assessee on 3 June, 2015 cites

Distributors (Baroda) Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India And Two Ors on 1 July, 1985

We do not want to comment as to why and how the registration was granted to Patiala authority as the same is not pending before us for adjudication. Reliance can be placed upon the decision pronounced by the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. wherein the Hon'ble apex Court held that "it is almost as important that the law should be settled permanently as that it should be settled correctly but there may be circumstances where public interest demands that the previous decision be reviewed and reconsidered. The doctrine of stare decises should not deter the Court from overruling an earlier decision, if it is satisfied that such decision is manifestly wrong or precedes upon a mistaken assumption in regard to the existence or continuation of a statutory provision or is contrary to another decision of the Court." However, two views reasonably may be possible. Perpetuation of error is not a heroism. However, we make it clear that this observation of ours should not be treated to bear any effect in the case of Patiala authority. At the same time, the order passed by a lower authority is not binding on the Tribunal. However, it may be a good arguable point by the parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 40 - Cited by 347 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

New Okhla Industrial Development ... vs Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax on 17 January, 2014

Considering the arguments of the ld. counsel for the assessee and on perusal of the facts of the present case with the facts in M/s. Jalandhar Development Authority (supra), we are of the view that facts in the present case are identical to the facts as in the case of Jalandhar Development Authority. As regards the first proviso inserted in section 2(15) of the Act, we have given our views hereinabove that the Ld. CIT had not considered the first proviso to section 2(15) as well as the second proviso to section 2(15) while making the order for grant of registration on 30.09.2009.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... vs Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers ... on 19 November, 1979

CIT Vs Surat Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association (1979) 13 CTR (SC) 378: (1980) 121 ITR 1 (SC), CIT Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (1986) 52 CTR (SC) 75: (1986) 159 ITR 1 (SC) and New Life in Christ Evangelistic Association (NLC) Vs CIT (2001) 165 CTR (Mad) 446: (2000) 246 ITR 532 (Mad) distinguished."
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 2322 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next