Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.57 seconds)
Vijayasanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 15 November, 1990
cites
M/S. Ram Narain Sons Ltd vs Asst. Commissioner Of Sales Tax And ... on 20 September, 1955
14. In V.K. Steel Industries (P.) Ltd. v. Asst. CIT , the impugned order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad, stated that the cases pertaining to the petitioner are transferred from the Assistant Commissioner, Circle 4(3), Hyderabad, to the Assistant Commissioner (Investigation Circle 1), Vishakhapatnam. The reason given in the order was said to be "to facilitate detaited and co-ordinated investigation". The order was preceded by a show-cause notice which too stated the same reasons. However, when the writ petitioner was being heard, a copy of the reasons behind the order, as having been reduced to writing, was furnished. The Division Bench then observed (at p. 404) :
Sagarmal Spinning And Weaving Mills ... vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes And Ors. on 5 October, 1970
In Sagarmal spinning and weaving Mills Ltd. v. CBDT [1972] 83 ITR 130, the Madhya Pradesh High Court further observed that the question whether the opportunity given to the affected party is reasonable or not will be a matter for interpretation by the court and not by the authority itself. The learned judges observed further that headnote) :
Shivajirao Angre vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 9 November, 1984
13. Commissioner proposed the transfer as such transfer was considered necessary "for the purpose of detailed and co-ordinated investigation". The petitioner submitted objections but, thereafter, no order was served on the petitioner regarding the transfer. The petitioner received notices from the officers to whom the case was transferred. After referring to the cases referred to above by us, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the words used in the notice "did not amount to reasons". No order containing any reasons was also communicated. The writ petition was allowed.
Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New Delhi ... on 5 December, 1975
9. Under this section, therefore, giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard wherever it is possible to do so and recording of reasons for the transfer are essential. The Supreme Court has held in Ajantha Industries v. CBDT , already referred to, as follows (headnote) :
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 146 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
1