Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.23 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 156 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006
G. T. N. Textiles Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax. on 29 January, 1993
11. The learned lawyer for the respondents on the merits contends that it is the discretionary power under the aforesaid Section 220, Sub-section (2A). The impugned order rejecting such application has been passed with reasons. When respondent No. 1 in exercise of his discretionary power has rejected the application it is not open for this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with this order substituting its own reasons, since the petitioner has not fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in Section 220(2A) of the Act. He referred to cases, viz., Ramapati Singha-nia v. CIT[1998] 234 1TR 655, 660 (AH) ; Eminent Enterprises v. CIT ; AURO Food Ltd. v. CIT ; S. A. Wahab v. ITO ; New Shorrock Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 765 (Bom) ; G. T. N. Textiles Ltd. v. Deputy CIT and Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. v. ITO .
Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 22 January, 1992
11. The learned lawyer for the respondents on the merits contends that it is the discretionary power under the aforesaid Section 220, Sub-section (2A). The impugned order rejecting such application has been passed with reasons. When respondent No. 1 in exercise of his discretionary power has rejected the application it is not open for this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with this order substituting its own reasons, since the petitioner has not fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in Section 220(2A) of the Act. He referred to cases, viz., Ramapati Singha-nia v. CIT[1998] 234 1TR 655, 660 (AH) ; Eminent Enterprises v. CIT ; AURO Food Ltd. v. CIT ; S. A. Wahab v. ITO ; New Shorrock Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 208 ITR 765 (Bom) ; G. T. N. Textiles Ltd. v. Deputy CIT and Shri Ambica Mills Ltd. v. ITO .
Brij Mohan vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi on 3 August, 1979
In the case of Brij Mohan v. CIT , cited by Dr. Pal the apex court, while deciding the question of applicability of Clause (iii) substituted in Section 271(1) by the Finance Act, 1968, held that it is the law operating on the date on which the wrongful act is committed which determines the penalty. Where penalty is imposed for the concealment of particulars of income, it is the law ruling on the date when the act of concealment takes place which is relevant. So, I reject the contention of the learned lawyer for the respondent that assessment year will be relevant and Sub-section (2A) will not be applicable. In my view, the aforesaid subsection will also be applicable in a case where the interest has already been paid though the assessee has reasons to apply for waiver. Therefore, the said sub-section will have partial retrospective effect in limited cases because of the language employed therein. The petitioner is entitled to
apply for waiver or reduction of interest and for that matter the Commissioner has rightly entertained this application.
Kishan Lal vs Union Of India & Anr on 22 January, 1998
In the case of Kishan Lal v. Union of India [1998] 230 ITR 85, the Supreme Court laid down that when an application is filed under Subsection (2A) of Section 220 the authority concerned is called upon to take a quasi-judicial decision. If it is satisfied that the reasons contained in the application would bring the case under Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 220(2A) then it has the power either to reduce or waive the amount of interest.
Comptroller And Auditor General Of ... vs K.S. Jagannathan & Anr on 1 April, 1986
25. in the case of Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi v. K. S. Jagannathan, , the apex court, explaining the power of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has held that the High Courts exercising their power jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or to pass orders and give necessary directions where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for implementing which such discretion has been conferred. In all such cases and in any other fit and proper case a High Court can, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or pass orders and give directions to compel the performance in a proper and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority, and in a proper case, in order to prevent injustice resulting to the concerned parties, the court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authority should have passed or given had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion.