Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.29 seconds)Section 127 in The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 124 in The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 444 in The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 169 in The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
K. Narasimhah vs H. C. Singri Gowda on 1 April, 1964
6) On the first issue, relying upon the judgments of this Court in K.
Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda1, Banarsi Debi v. Income
Tax Officer2 and other judgments, the High Court has held that
impugned notice is time barred as the said notice under Section
126 was served upon the respondent herein beyond the specified
period i.e. on April 4, 1998, even when it was dispatched on
March 25, 1998. Such a notice could not form basis to determine
the rateable value for the year 1997-98.
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Smt. Gomti Devi Banarsi Das Vaid ... vs Income-Tax Officer on 1 July, 1985
6) On the first issue, relying upon the judgments of this Court in K.
Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda1, Banarsi Debi v. Income
Tax Officer2 and other judgments, the High Court has held that
impugned notice is time barred as the said notice under Section
126 was served upon the respondent herein beyond the specified
period i.e. on April 4, 1998, even when it was dispatched on
March 25, 1998. Such a notice could not form basis to determine
the rateable value for the year 1997-98.
Supdt. Of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors vs Onkarmal Nathmal Trust Etc. Etc on 1 May, 1975
20) Reliance by the High Court on explanation to Section 126(4)
Civil Appeal No. 8675 of 2011 Page 16 of 18
of the Act, having regard to our aforesaid discussion would be of
no consequence. Similarly, Constitution Bench judgment in
Onkarmal Nathmal Trust case is not applicable insofar as issue
at hand is concerned as that case was concerned only with the
period of limitation prescribed in a taxing statute. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that second question has not been rightly
decided by the High Court. We answer that question in favour of
the appellant.