Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Mulay Brothers vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 10 January, 1989
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on [1963] 14 STC 67 (MP) (Firm Janta Hardware Stores v. B.S. Parihar, Assistant Sales Tax Officer) and [1991] 81 STC 269 (MP) ; 1989 MPLJ 422 (Mulay Brothers v. State of M.P.) and contended that notice, as impugned, is based on mere chance of escaped assessment and not on definite material about taxing events. It is submitted that there is no definite material to show that alleged purchases or sales were effected by the petitioner in Madhya Pradesh. The notice is consequently dubbed as being without jurisdiction. The notice is thus, sought to be incinerated.
Income Tax Officer, Cuttack And Ors vs Biju Patnaik on 7 December, 1990
In [1991] 188 ITR 247 (SC) ; AIR 1991 SC 464 (Income-tax Officer v. Biju Patnaik), validity of notice, directing reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, was sustained on the basis of record and affidavit even when the notice had not ex facie disclosed or established the factum of due application of mind.
M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal And Another vs Income-Tax Officer And Another on 13 July, 1993
This position of law was again reiterated in [1993] 203 ITR 456 (SC) ; AIR 1993 SC 2390 (Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. Income-tax Officer).
Shyam Kishore And Others vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ... on 3 September, 1992
In AIR 1992 SC 2279 (Shyam Kishore v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi), it is held that resort to Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not proper when a more satisfactory solution is available on the terms of statute itself.
Firm Janta Hardware Stores And Ors. vs B.S. Parihar, Asstt. Sales Tax Officer on 7 April, 1962
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on [1963] 14 STC 67 (MP) (Firm Janta Hardware Stores v. B.S. Parihar, Assistant Sales Tax Officer) and [1991] 81 STC 269 (MP) ; 1989 MPLJ 422 (Mulay Brothers v. State of M.P.) and contended that notice, as impugned, is based on mere chance of escaped assessment and not on definite material about taxing events. It is submitted that there is no definite material to show that alleged purchases or sales were effected by the petitioner in Madhya Pradesh. The notice is consequently dubbed as being without jurisdiction. The notice is thus, sought to be incinerated.