Shriyans Pradad Jain vs Income-Tax Officer And Others on 14 September, 1993
In Shriyans Prasad Jain v. Income-Tax Officer and others
OP 37260/2002 8
[(1993) 204 I.T.R. 616 (SC)], it was held by the Apex Court thus:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)C.I.T. Mumbai City Xiv, Mumbai vs The Income Tax Settlement Commission, ... on 28 July, 2000
It is therefore clear that interference can be made only if it is found that the
order is contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. The Bombay High
Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Income-tax Settlement
Commission and others {(2000) 246 ITR 63}, has also laid down the scope
of interference in such matters and the scope of writ jurisdiction has been
explained thus at page 79:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
N. Krishan (Decd. By Legal ... vs Settlement Commission And Ors. on 10 March, 1989
In
N. Krishnan's case {(1989) 180 ITR 585), with regard to the scope of
interference with the decisions of the Settlement Commission, it was held
thus:
R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & ... vs Settlement Commission (It & Wt) & Anr on 27 January, 1989
"Mr.Poti, learned counsel for the Revenue, is right in
submitting that in this appeal this Court would not go into
questions of fact or review the findings of fact recorded by the
Commission. As pointed out by this Court in Jyotendrasinhji
v.S.I.Tripathi (1993) 201 ITR 611, this Court can interfere
with the Commission's order only if it is found to be "contrary
to any of the provisions of the Act". To the same effect is the
earlier decision of this Court in R.B.Shreeram Durga Prasad
and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (I.T.
and W.T.) (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC)."
Jyotendrasinhji vs S.I. Tripathi And Ors on 2 April, 1993
It was also observed at page 82 thus: "As pointed out in Jyotendrasinhji v.
OP 37260/2002 10
S.I. Tripathi {(1993) 201 ITR 611(SC)}, this Court can interfere with the
order if it is found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act." The above
principles are therefore relevant to consider the scope of interference on
Ext.P2 by this Court in these proceedings. There is no violation of the
provisions of the Act and there is no error apparent on the proceedings also.
1