Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)Ajantha Industries And Ors vs Central Board Of Direct Taxes,New Delhi ... on 5 December, 1975
14. Laying stress on the decision in the case of Ajantha Industries' case [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC), learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the requirement of recording" reasons under Section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the transfer of a case from one Income-tax Officer to another is a mandatory direction under the law and non-communication thereof to the assessee is not saved by showing that the reasons exist in the file although not communicated to the assessee. Recording of reasons and disclosure thereof are not a mere idle formality. When law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order affecting prejudicially the interests of any person, who can challenge the order in court, it ceases to be a mere administrative order and the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice on account of omission to communicate the reason is not expiated. Hence, it is submitted that the order impugned be quashed.
O.A.O.K. Latchmanan Chettiar vs The Commissioner, Corporation Of ... on 7 October, 1926
In this regard see Halsbury's Laws of England, volume II, third edition, page 140, pr. 265, and also the case reported in O.A.O.K. Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras [1927] AIR 1927 Mad 130, which are referred to in the decision in the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India [1957] 31 ITR 565 (SC).
Pannalal Binjraj vs Union Of India on 21 December, 1956
In this regard see Halsbury's Laws of England, volume II, third edition, page 140, pr. 265, and also the case reported in O.A.O.K. Lakshmanan Chettiar v. Commissioner, Corporation of Madras [1927] AIR 1927 Mad 130, which are referred to in the decision in the case of Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India [1957] 31 ITR 565 (SC).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Vijayasanthi Investments Pvt. Ltd. vs Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 15 November, 1990
In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Vijayasanthi Investments P. Ltd. v. Chief CIT [1991] 187 ITR 405 (AP) and in the case of Shantilal Hiralal and Co. v. K.S. Ramamurthi, first ITO [1985] 152 ITR 236 (Bom).
Section 158BC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Shantilal Hiralal And Co. And Others vs K.S. Ramamurti, First Income-Tax ... on 15 November, 1983
In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Vijayasanthi Investments P. Ltd. v. Chief CIT [1991] 187 ITR 405 (AP) and in the case of Shantilal Hiralal and Co. v. K.S. Ramamurthi, first ITO [1985] 152 ITR 236 (Bom).
1