Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)Section 12 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hanumanbux Inderchand on 8 May, 1979
___________________________________________________________
Assessment year Sale of wild grass Net profit from sales
of books and photos
___________________________________________________________
1967-68 Rs. 1,000 Rs. 1,020
1968-69 Rs. 1,500 Rs. 1,207
1969-70 Rs. 2,000 Rs. 1,297
____________________________________________________________
According to the learned counsel, there was no basis for these additions made by the departmental authorities and that the same should be deleted, in case we do not agree with his submissions set out earlier. Shri Sharma relied on the following three decisions in support of his contentions that grounds whick were not decided earlier by the Tribunal have to be decided by it while giving effect to the order of the High Court-CIT v. Hyderabad Deccan Liquor Syndicate [1974] 95 ITR 130 (AP) ; Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 462 (SC) and CIT v. Hanumanbux Inderchand [1980] 125 ITR 248 (Gauhati).
Commissioner Of Income Tax, West Bengal vs Balkrishan Malhotra on 28 July, 1971
In support of this plea, the learned counsel has given quotations from 'Words and Phrases'. But a perusal of the extracts from this book clearly shows that this rule of stare decisis is inapplicable in the present case. The decision of the Commissioner given in the assessment years 1937-38 and 1938-39 and followed by the department in all the subsequent assessment years up to and inclusive of the assessment year 1963-64 are not decisions of any High, Court or the Supreme Court to which alone this rule of stare decisis would be applicable. It is not, therefore, necessary for us to discuss in detail the extracts given from the book 'Words and Phrases' or the extracts from the book of Interpretation of Statutes by Vepa P. Sarathi in which the learned author has relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. B. Malhotra [1971] 2 SCC 547/[1973] 2 SCC 35. In fact the extract relied on by the learned counsel from these two decisions only support our conclusion that the rule of stare decisis would be applicable only to decisions of a High Court or the Supreme Court and not to any decisions either of the departmental authorities or even of the Tribunal.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hyderabad Deccan Liquor Syndicate on 31 July, 1972
What, in essence, is estoppel ? Estoppel is a rule of equity which forbids truth being pleaded or representation, on which faith another has acted to his detriment, being retracted. Even extending the rule into the new flanged empire of promissory estoppel it cannot go beyond the limits of the Law Revision Committee in England which Lord Denning allowed to blossom in High Trees' case [1947] 1 KB 130 (KB), see Discipline of Law by Lord Denning, page 202 :
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs B. N.Bhattacharjee & Anr on 4 May, 1979
In this connection we may usefully refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 118 ITR 326 and CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee [1979] 118 ITR 461. In the first case, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be applied in the teeth of an obligation or liability imposed by law, that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the Government or even a private party to do an act prohibited by law, that there can also be no promissory estoppel against the exercise of legislative power and that the Legislature can never be precluded from exercising its legislative function by resort to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In the latter Judgment, the Supreme Court again considered the rule of estoppel and held as follows :
M/S Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 12 December, 1978
In this connection we may usefully refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1979] 118 ITR 326 and CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee [1979] 118 ITR 461. In the first case, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be applied in the teeth of an obligation or liability imposed by law, that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to compel the Government or even a private party to do an act prohibited by law, that there can also be no promissory estoppel against the exercise of legislative power and that the Legislature can never be precluded from exercising its legislative function by resort to the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In the latter Judgment, the Supreme Court again considered the rule of estoppel and held as follows :
Udhavdas Kewalram vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 14 April, 1967
___________________________________________________________
Assessment year Sale of wild grass Net profit from sales
of books and photos
___________________________________________________________
1967-68 Rs. 1,000 Rs. 1,020
1968-69 Rs. 1,500 Rs. 1,207
1969-70 Rs. 2,000 Rs. 1,297
____________________________________________________________
According to the learned counsel, there was no basis for these additions made by the departmental authorities and that the same should be deleted, in case we do not agree with his submissions set out earlier. Shri Sharma relied on the following three decisions in support of his contentions that grounds whick were not decided earlier by the Tribunal have to be decided by it while giving effect to the order of the High Court-CIT v. Hyderabad Deccan Liquor Syndicate [1974] 95 ITR 130 (AP) ; Udhavdas Kewalram v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 462 (SC) and CIT v. Hanumanbux Inderchand [1980] 125 ITR 248 (Gauhati).
British India Corporation vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U.P., ... on 3 October, 1972
In British Indian Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 793 (All.
1