Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.25 seconds)T. S. Balaram, Income Tax ... vs M/S. Volkart Brothers, Bombay on 5 August, 1971
47. While considering the scope of section 254(2), the Hon'ble Court made reference to several cases including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers & Others (2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-171-SC-IT) Master construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa (1996) 17 STC 360 (SC); Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hedge Vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale (1960) AIR 1960 SC 137 and held that the decision on a debatable point of law or fact etc. etc., which remained to be investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification. The Hon'ble Court has also made following observation while deciding the scope of sec. 254(2) :
Seth Madan Lal Modi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) on 22 November, 2002
In view of there facts, the decision in the case of Seth Madan Lal Modi Vs. CIT (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Highway Construction Co. (P.) Ltd. (No. ... on 6 August, 1996
32. The issue relating to power of Special Bench was considered in the case of CIT Vs. Highway Construction Co. P. Ltd. 1996 217 ITR 234 (Gauhati). In that case the assessee was engaged in he business of building construction. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3). Thereafter the assessee was served with assessment order and a demand notice of the same date but no paper indicating the determination of tax as payable by the assessee on its total income was received. The AAC upheld the order of the ITO despite objection of the assessee. Both, the department and the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. The department's appeal was heard separately and disposed of .
Collector, Central Excise, Bombay vs M/S. S.D. Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd on 30 March, 1995
In the case of Collector, Central Excise, Bombay Vs. S.D. Fine Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 336, the issue was as to whether the process of distillation and recrystallization of chemicals amounted to manufacture for the purpose of sec. 2(f) and 3 of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. There was difference in opinion between two members and the matter was referred to the Third Member. The Third Member while deciding the issue did not consider the observations of the Member (Judicial) and decided the issue without considering the matter in proper manner and by a cryptic order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after considering these aspects observed as under.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Cntl), ... vs M/S Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Ludhiana on 28 August, 1997
In support of his contention the learned counsel made reference to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. & Others (1997) 228 ITR 463; and in the case of Seth Madan Lal Modi Vs. CIT (2003) 261 ITR 49 (Delhi).
C.S. Mathur vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Ors. on 27 March, 1998
54. The learned counsel for the assessee has also made reference to the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of C.S. Mathur Vs. CBDT & Others 235 ITR 769, to justify his point on merits of the case.