Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)Section 5A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Mtt. Ar. S. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar on 22 December, 1952
(16) In Commr. of Income-tax v. Arunachala Chettiar, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction conferred under the Act on the Tribunal and the High Court would be conditional of there being an order by the Appellate Tribunal, which could be said to by one under Ss. 33(4) of the Act and on a question of law arising out of such order.
The New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 12 May, 1959
In New Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. v. Commr. of Income-tax, Bhagwati J. while discussing the limits of a reference to the High Court under S. 66(1) has observed:
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. on 6 April, 1961
(17) The scope of the jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 66 was elaborately considered in Commr. of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., where it was laid down that essentially speaking the jurisdiction of the High Court was neither appellate nor revisional but purely advisory. The High Court, therefore, can decide only questions which are referred to it and not any other questions. It will have no jurisdiction itself to give a finding on facts. Where, therefore, there is neither an admission of a fact before the Tribunal nor a finding by it in regard to the at matter, the High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under S. 66, will really have not the benefit of a final finding of fact on which its opinion be rested. Section 66 no doubt, contemplates a statement of the case being prepared by the Tribunal and sent to the High Court for the purpose obtaining its opinion; but a statement of the case is in the nature of a pleading setting out the facts admitted and facts found. At the stage of he preparation of the statement of the case, there is no occasion for the Appellate Tribunal to decide any disputed question of fact. This aspect of the matter can well be illustrated by the present case itself. The appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed for default. There was no occasion for it to consider the merits of the assessee's case. When this court directed the Tribunal to submit a statement of the case on the second of the questions referred to above, the Tribunal could not really state a case on that point, although under S. 66 it was bound to do so. This was because the manner in which the appeal disposed of precluded it from investigating the matter. It cannot, of course, be said that in cases where there was a dismissal of an appeal by the Tribunal for default, the aggrieved party would have no right to approach the High Court for its opinion under S. 66, except when a question of law arises, on the propriety of the dismissal alone.
Ravula Subba Rao And Another vs The Commissioner Of ... on 9 May, 1956
(1) This reference to a special Bench has been necessitated by reason of certain doubts felt as to the correctness of the decision in Ravula Subba Rao v. Commissioner of Income-tax, . The question that falls for determination on this reference can be formulated thus.
Gadi Neelaveni vs Marappareddigari Narayana Reddi on 1 October, 1919
In Neelaveni v. Narayana Reddi, ILR 43 Mad 94: (AIR 1920 Mad 640) (FB), a Full Bench of this court has held that a court would have no power, apart form the provisions of any statute, to set aside an ex parte order passed by itself. That rule will apply to the case of dismissal for default as well. We have earlier refereed to the decision in where Satyanarayana Rao J. rested his conclusion mainly on the fact that the word 'thereon' used in S. 33(4) of the Act should receive a wide interpretation. In so holding, the learned Judge did not advert to the several considerations to which we have made reference just now. We are unable to share the view taken in that case.