Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.27 seconds)Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 22 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
C. A. Abraham, Uppoottil, Kottayam vs The Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam And ... on 29 November, 1960
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent also raised the point that as the Income-tax Act provides a complete machinery for assessment of tax and for obtaining relief in the case of an improper order passed by the income-tax authorities a person aggrieved cannot be permitted to abandon resort to that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under article article 226 of the Constitution. In other words his argument is that the alternative remedy provided by the Income-tax Act bars resort to article 226 of the Constitution. Reference was made by the counsel for the parties to the cases of C.A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam; Carl Still G. m. b. H. v. State of Bihar and Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani, and to the cases of Calcutta Discount Co. v. Income-tax Officer, Calcutta, and Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India. But I do not think it is necessary to deal with these cases at length or to express any opinion on this point.
B.M. Desai vs V. Ramamurthy, I Income-Tax Officer, ... on 31 March, 1958
Our attention was also drawn to the cases of B.M. Desai v. Ramamurthy, Income-tax Officer, Bombay; Haramohan Poddar v. Sudarson Poddar and to two English cases, Attorney-General v. Partington and Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners. But these cases also need not be dealt with at any length.
Haramohan Poddar And Anr. vs Sudarsan Poddar And Ors. on 19 March, 1920
Our attention was also drawn to the cases of B.M. Desai v. Ramamurthy, Income-tax Officer, Bombay; Haramohan Poddar v. Sudarson Poddar and to two English cases, Attorney-General v. Partington and Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners. But these cases also need not be dealt with at any length.