Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.39 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Mohinder Lal on 14 August, 1986 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi vs Om Prakash Mahajan And Sons on 27 February, 1984

28. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied on various High Court decisions in CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215 (All); CIT v. Pearey Lal Radhey Raman [1979] 117 ITR 319 (All); Ganesh Dass Ram Gopal v. IAC of I.T. [1983] 142 ITR 101 (All); CIT v. Dhadi Saher [1976] 105 ITR 56 (Orissa) and Radheshyam Agarwalla v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 196 (Orissa). Reliance in all these decisions has been placed on the Supreme Court decisions referred to above. As none of the Supreme Court decisions supports the view that the judicial authority, once seized of the matter, would be divested of the same by the later amendment of the law taking away its jurisdiction, they all have to be dissented from.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 25 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Garikapatti Veeraya vs N. Subbiah Choudhury on 1 February, 1957

There are two exceptions to the application of this rule, viz., (1) when by competent enactment such right of appeal is taken away expressly or impliedly with retrospective effect and (2) when the court to which appeal lay at the commencement of the suit stands abolished (See Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry [1957] SCR 488 ; AIR 1957 SC 540 and Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving [1905] AC 369)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 101 - Cited by 521 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pearey Lal Radhey Raman on 24 November, 1978

28. Learned counsel for the assessee also relied on various High Court decisions in CIT v. Om Sons [1979] 116 ITR 215 (All); CIT v. Pearey Lal Radhey Raman [1979] 117 ITR 319 (All); Ganesh Dass Ram Gopal v. IAC of I.T. [1983] 142 ITR 101 (All); CIT v. Dhadi Saher [1976] 105 ITR 56 (Orissa) and Radheshyam Agarwalla v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 196 (Orissa). Reliance in all these decisions has been placed on the Supreme Court decisions referred to above. As none of the Supreme Court decisions supports the view that the judicial authority, once seized of the matter, would be divested of the same by the later amendment of the law taking away its jurisdiction, they all have to be dissented from.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Eastern Development Corpn. on 7 February, 1980

2. Mr. Ashok Bhan, appearing for the petitioner, has canvassed that the order dated December 13, 1979, of the Tribunal holding that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to deal with the question of imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the date he passed the order imposing penalty, i.e., February 25, 1978, because as a result of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as "the Amending Act"), which took effect from April 1, 1976, the Income-tax Officer alone was competent to deal with the question of imposition of penalty and the jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner envisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 271 of the Act stood abolished as a result of the deletion of Sub-section (2) of Section 274 with effect from April 1, 1976, as a result of the Amending Act, ran counter to the Division Bench decisions of this court in CIT v. Raman Industries [1980] 121 ITR 405, CIT v. Sadhu Ram [1981] 127 ITR 517, CIT v. Mela Ram Jagdish Raj & Co. [1981] 132 ITR 897 and Telu Ram Raunqi Ram v. CIT [1984] 146 ITR 401, besides the decisions of other High Courts, namely, CIT v. R. Ochhavlal & Co. [1976] 105 ITR 518 (Guj), CIT v. Royal Motor Car Co. [1977] 107 ITR 753 (Guj), Laltaprasad Goenka v. CIT [1983] 143 ITR 924 (Bom), Continental Commercial Corpn. v. ITO [1975] 100 ITR 170 (Mad), CIT v. Eastern Development Corpn. [1982] 135 ITR 516 (Cal), Addl.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next