Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Veerappa Pillai vs Raman & Raman Ltd. And Others on 17 March, 1952
In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions in Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, A.M. Allison v. B.L. Sen, Pooran Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Agra and Sripat Narain Rai v. Board of Revenue.
Section 52 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Hari Vishnu Kamath vs Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others on 9 December, 1954
There is one further difficulty in the petitioners way. It was undoubtedly open to the Income-tax Officer to proceed to recover the tax demand by the issue of a notice under section 46(5A). At worst, he committed an error of law in seeking to proceed against property, namely, the rents and profits of the house in question, which, according to the petitioner, is not an asset of the deceased, but in order to entitle the petitioner to relief, it was necessary for him to show further that the error of law was such as could be characterized as self-evident or apparent from the record. Unless the error fell in this class, the petitioner could not get relief by a writ of certiorari. This has been so held by the Supreme court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale.
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
There is one further difficulty in the petitioners way. It was undoubtedly open to the Income-tax Officer to proceed to recover the tax demand by the issue of a notice under section 46(5A). At worst, he committed an error of law in seeking to proceed against property, namely, the rents and profits of the house in question, which, according to the petitioner, is not an asset of the deceased, but in order to entitle the petitioner to relief, it was necessary for him to show further that the error of law was such as could be characterized as self-evident or apparent from the record. Unless the error fell in this class, the petitioner could not get relief by a writ of certiorari. This has been so held by the Supreme court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale.
Pooran Singh And Ors. vs Additional Commissioner And Ors. on 4 January, 1957
In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions in Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, A.M. Allison v. B.L. Sen, Pooran Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Agra and Sripat Narain Rai v. Board of Revenue.
Sripat Narain Rai vs Board Of Revenue, U.P. And Ors. on 13 April, 1959
In this connection, reference may be made to the decisions in Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, A.M. Allison v. B.L. Sen, Pooran Singh v. Additional Commissioner, Agra and Sripat Narain Rai v. Board of Revenue.