Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.55 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Companies Act, 1956
Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 August, 2013
The entire issues framed, in our considered view,
are covered by the recent judgment of the Supreme
Court referred above. Considering the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it
has been held therein in the following manner:
Section 46A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 391 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 393 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Gkn Driveshafts (India) Ltd vs Income Tax Officer And Ors on 25 November, 2002
509); Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, ((2002) 7
SCC 484) and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO,
((2003) 1 SCC 72).”
Genpact India Private Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 22 November, 2019
10.5. A submission is also made raising doubt over the
maintainability of the appeal under Section 246-A of the Act. We
have no hesitation in holding that the appeal is maintainable. The very
case of the respondent is that the appellant ought to have shown its
return the transactions as dividend and not capital gain. Therefore, it
is a case of an improper return having been filed. Considering some
what similar objection raised on a slightly different fact involving a
demand raised under Section 115Q of the Act, a Division Bench of
Delhi High Court in Genpact India (P) Limited Vs. Deputy
Commissioner of Income-Tax ((2019) 108 Taxmann.com
340(Delhi) was pleased to hold that the appeal would certainly be
maintainable. Therefore, any order involving civil consequence has to
be termed as final, entitling an assessee in challenging the same
before the appellate forum. Certainly, a purposive interpretation is
required to be adopted. In a procedural law which provides for an
appeal, a technical interpretation is required to be eschewed.
Pratap Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 23 September, 2002
509); Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, ((2002) 7
SCC 484) and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO,
((2003) 1 SCC 72).”