Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.60 seconds)
Aaa Portfolios Pvt. Ltd & Ors. vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & ... on 24 July, 2013
cites
Section 226 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Beharilal Ramcharan vs Income-Tax Officer, Special Circle 'B' ... on 21 July, 1981
The apex court had taken such a view in Beharilal
Ramcharan v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 129, 137- 38. It is only when the
objection is altogether false and it is so apparent and is so discovered
that the Tax Recovery Officer can proceed against the garnishee
under section 226(3) of the Act. It is only the part, which cannot be
objected to would come within its purview."
Shaw Wallace And Co. Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 15 January, 2004
18. A Division Bench of the Calcatta High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace
and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India: (2003) 262 ITR 528 (Cal.) also expressed a
similar view and held as under:
Surinder Nath Kapoor vs Union Of India & Ors on 3 August, 1988
20. The Supreme Court has in the case of Surinder Nath Kapoor v. Union of
India: AIR 1988 SC 1777, observed as under:
Mohamedaly Sarafaly & Co. vs Income-Tax Officer, Central Circle ... on 10 August, 1967
The proceedings under section
226(3) of the Act would then be subject to the determination by the
appropriate forum. Until determination, the Tax Recovery Officer
has no scope of discovering the falsity of the objection. When the
W.P.(C) No 1272/2013 Page 9 of 20
garnishee does not admit or denies that he owes the debt to the
assessee, the Tax Recovery Officer cannot sit in judgment over the
denial and come to his own conclusion. It was so held in
Mohamedaly Sarafaly and Co. v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 128, 131 (Mad)
and P. K. Trading Co. v. ITO [1970] 78 ITR 427, 433 (Cal). Once on
oath the garnishee denies the liability towards the assessee, the
burden of showing the statement on oath is false in any material
particular would be upon the Revenue. The Revenue has to disclose
material particulars that led it to a definite conclusion. Then only the
payment can be imposed on the garnishee under section 226(3)(vi)
of the Act.
P.K. Trading Company vs Income-Tax Officer, "K" Ward on 16 January, 1970
The proceedings under section
226(3) of the Act would then be subject to the determination by the
appropriate forum. Until determination, the Tax Recovery Officer
has no scope of discovering the falsity of the objection. When the
W.P.(C) No 1272/2013 Page 9 of 20
garnishee does not admit or denies that he owes the debt to the
assessee, the Tax Recovery Officer cannot sit in judgment over the
denial and come to his own conclusion. It was so held in
Mohamedaly Sarafaly and Co. v. ITO [1968] 68 ITR 128, 131 (Mad)
and P. K. Trading Co. v. ITO [1970] 78 ITR 427, 433 (Cal). Once on
oath the garnishee denies the liability towards the assessee, the
burden of showing the statement on oath is false in any material
particular would be upon the Revenue. The Revenue has to disclose
material particulars that led it to a definite conclusion. Then only the
payment can be imposed on the garnishee under section 226(3)(vi)
of the Act.
1