Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.21 seconds)Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 297 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Raja Kulkarni And Others vs The State Of Bombay on 24 November, 1953
It is not denied that those proceedings
were initiated by a competent authority. Those- proceedings
were quashed for the reason that notice under section 34 of
1922 Act was issued beyond the time prescribed by law.
Hence it cannot be said that no proceeding under section 34
of the 1922 Act either factually or legally was pending at
the time when the new Act came into force.
Our above conclusion receives support from the decision of
this Court in Raja Kulkarni and others v. The State of
Bombay(1). Therein the question that arose for decision was
whether an appeal under section 24 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1950 can be said to have been pending if that
appeal was incompetent or invalid for some reason. This
Court ruled that what was necessary was the factual pendency
of the appeal and not that it should have been a valid or
competent one under the provisions of the limitation Act or
such other adjectival law.