Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (2.55 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Newspapers Ltd vs The State Industrial Tribunal, U.P on 20 March, 1957
18. The jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 is dependent upon the dispute being an
'industrial dispute' as defined in the Act. The Supreme Court held that the finding whether a dispute is an industrial dispute, relates to the condition precedent, and is on a jurisdictional question. (Newspapers Ltd. v. State of Industrial Tribunal, U. P., (S) AIR 1957 SC 532 (539)).
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
20. Under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, an Income-tax Officer can issue a notice for re-assessment provided he has reason to believe that under-assessment has resulted from non-disclosure of material facts. The existence of reasons was held by the Supreme Court to be a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction to issue the notice (Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, AIR 1961 SC 372).
East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. ... vs The Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 4 May, 1962
"We, therefore, hold that the law declared by the highest court in the State is binding on authorities or tribunals under its superintendence, and that they cannot ignore it either in initiating a proceeding or deciding on the rights involved in such a proceeding. If that be so, the notice issued by the authority signifying the launching of proceedings contrary to the law laid down by the High Court would be invalid and the proceedings themselves would be without jurisdiction."
State Of Rajasthan vs Shyam Lal on 12 March, 1964
The Board of Revenue has in the case of State v. Sri Shiam Behari Lal, 1957 All LJ 88 (BR) held that "if the members of an undivided Hindu family have separated in fact and in law even with the intention of avoiding high taxation, there is no law to declare it void". In another case the Board of Revenue held that "even in partition in a Joint Hindu family is effected in law and in fact to avoid assessment it cannot be held to be illegal and inoperative".
Karan Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 4 November, 1964
See Sri Karan Singh v. State, 1957 A11LJ 95 (BR). The motive impelling persons to partition their properties is irrelevant. A man is entitled to employ all such means as are not prohibited and made unlawful by law in order to save payment of tax. Such an attitude of mind is no crime, per se; it should not give rise to any suspicion.