Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.24 seconds)
K. Banappa M. Basappa vs State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 1978 cites

Nawabkhan Abbaskhan vs The State Of Gujarat on 19 February, 1974

23. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal was not justified in remanding the case to the appellate authority for disposal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee is, in our view, untenable. The decisions in Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat and Ponkunnam Traders v. Additional Income-tax Officer, Kottayam ([1972] 83 I.T.R. 508, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the Tribunal was not justified in remanding the cases to the appellate authority for disposal afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-assessee, do not in any way support such a contention. In the case of Nawabkhan Abbaskhan , the Supreme Court considered the question whether the appellant was liable to be prosecuted under section 142 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, for contravention of the externment order issued under section 56 of that Act. After declaring that there was no valid quit order, it held that there was no offence committed by the appellant. It further found that since the fundamental right of the appellant had been encroached upon by the Police Commissioner, the order of punishment was liable to be quashed. The said decision, in our view, does not assist the learned counsel for the petitioner in showing that it was necessary for the Tribunal to have declared the notice of rectification proceeding issued by the appellate authority as void.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 128 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Ponkunnam Traders vs Additional Income-Tax Officer, ... on 5 February, 1971

23. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal was not justified in remanding the case to the appellate authority for disposal after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee is, in our view, untenable. The decisions in Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat and Ponkunnam Traders v. Additional Income-tax Officer, Kottayam ([1972] 83 I.T.R. 508, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the Tribunal was not justified in remanding the cases to the appellate authority for disposal afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-assessee, do not in any way support such a contention. In the case of Nawabkhan Abbaskhan , the Supreme Court considered the question whether the appellant was liable to be prosecuted under section 142 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, for contravention of the externment order issued under section 56 of that Act. After declaring that there was no valid quit order, it held that there was no offence committed by the appellant. It further found that since the fundamental right of the appellant had been encroached upon by the Police Commissioner, the order of punishment was liable to be quashed. The said decision, in our view, does not assist the learned counsel for the petitioner in showing that it was necessary for the Tribunal to have declared the notice of rectification proceeding issued by the appellate authority as void.
Kerala High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next