Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.28 seconds)
Vikrambhai Punjabhai Palkhiwala vs S.M. Ajbanj, Recovery Office And Ors. on 15 September, 1989
cites
Section 34 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Hindusthan Rubber Works Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, L-Ward And Ors. on 16 December, 1970
To complete the facts, it is seen that a stay petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. Taking into consideration all these aspects of the case, we do not find that there is anything is section 220(6) debarring the officer concerned from refusing grant of stay. The mere filing of an appeal or an application for stay in such a appeal will not ipso facto grant stay of further proceedings in a tax recovery matter. The decision cited above, Hindusthan Rubber Works Ltd. v. ITO [1971] 81 ITR 397 (Cal), does not take away the right of the officer concerned to reject the stay application. On the other hand, that decision only states that since the officer has granted the stay originally under section 220(6), he cannot, without sufficient-cause refuse to continue the same. In those circumstances, the court held that such an order is bad. Hence, we do not think that the said decision can have any application to the facts and circumstances of this case, more especially as the stay asked for has been rejected at the threshold itself. As we have already observed, rule 73 notice is only a procedural show-cause notice and cannot be equated with the recovery proceedings under a substantive section of the Income-tax Act. Under rule 73, the procedure is to find out and get an explanation as to the advisability of executing and enforcing the tax recovery by detention in civil prison. There is absolutely no dispute that section 156 demand has been served on the petitioner and the present notice under rule 73 is not a jurisdictional notice as contemplated under section 148 of the Income-tax Act. Considering all these aspects of the case as submitted by Mr. R. P. Bhatt in his argument and also taking into account the affidavit-in-reply, we do not find any point for granting the prayers made by the petitioner herein. For all these reasons, this special civil application is dismissed. Rule discharged.
Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 146 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies ... on 1 November, 1960
In this connection, Mr. Vakil cited the decision in the case of Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1961] 41 ITR 191 (SC). This is case which arose under section 34 of the old Act corresponding to section 147 of the new Act. If the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have been underassessed and that such underassessment has occurred by reason of either :