Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 43 (0.30 seconds)Section 271 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 124 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
S. L. Kapoor vs Jagmohan & Ors on 18 September, 1980
In S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 SCC 379] ,
rejecting the argument that observance of natural
justice would have made no difference, this Court
said:(SCC p. 395, para 24)
Page | 19
ITA Nos. 3555& 3556/Mum/2023
Dinesh Somatmal Dhokar; A.Ys. 09-10 & 10-11
"24. ... The non-observance of natural justice is itself
prejudice to any man and proof of prejudice
independently of proof of denial of natural justice is
unnecessary. It ill comes from a person who has
denied justice that the person who has been denied
justice is not prejudiced."
State Bank Of Patiala & Ors vs S.K.Sharma on 27 March, 1996
The Full Bench can as well
consider the impact of non-discussion on the aspect of
'prejudice' in the decisions relied upon by Mr. Rivonkar,
which includes the decision in Goa Dourado
Promotions (supra), in the light of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Patiala (supra).
Managing Director Ecil Hyderabad Etc. ... vs B. Karunakar Etc. Etc on 1 October, 1993
The approach and test
adopted in Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar7
should govern all cases where the complaint is not that
there was no hearing (no notice, no opportunity and no
hearing), but one of not affording a proper hearing
(i.e. adequate or full hearing) or of violation of a
procedural rule or requirement governing the enquiry; the
complaint should be examined on the touchstone of
prejudice. The test is: 'all things taken together whether
the delinquent officer/employee had or did not have a fair
hearing'.
Section 153C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jankinath Sarangi vs State Of Orissa on 11 March, 1969
In Jankinath Sarangi v. State of Orissa [(1969) 3
SCC 392] it was contended that natural justice was
violated inasmuch as the petitioner was not allowed to
lead evidence and the material gathered behind his
back was used in determining his guilt. Dealing with
the contention, the Court stated: (SCC p. 394, para 5)
"5. ... We have to look to what actual prejudice has
been caused to a person by the supposed denial to him
of a particular right."