Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)

Alcock, Ashdown And Company Limited vs The Chief Revenue Authority Of Bombay on 7 June, 1923

4. Now the true legal position in a situation like the present appears to us to be this. It is perfectly correct that the High Court has the authority to require a reference from the appellate tribunal upon a question of law, and in the words of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Alcock Ashdown and Co. v. The Chief Revenue Authority, AIR .1923 PC 138 (A) "always supposing that there is a serious point of law to be considered, there lies a duty upon the Chief Revenue authority to State a case for the opinion of the court and if he does not appreciate that there is such a serious point, it is in the power of the court to control him and to order him to state the case." and further that if there is such a point of law "it ought to be decided in a regular manner and upon proper materials".
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 56 - Full Document

S.S. Subbiah Iyer vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 20 January, 1930

5. The principles we have formulated above are deducible from decided cases, and we would like to invite reference to In the matter of Thiru-vengada Mudaliar, AIR 1928 Mad 889 (SB) (B), approved by a larger Bench in Subbiah Iyer v. Commr. of Income Tax, AIR 1930 Mad 449 (SB) (C), In re Radhey Lal, AIR 1931 All 23 (D), Commr. of Income-Tax, B and O v. Lakshmibati, AIR 1935 Pat 8 (E), In the matter of Babulal Raj. Garhia, 1936-4 ITR 148 : (AIR 1938 Cal 168) (F) and Bray v. Justice of Lancashire, (1889) 22 QBD 484 (G).
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1