Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.36 seconds)

M/S. Sanghvi Reconditioners Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 February, 2010

16.The view expressed in Sanghvi Reconditioners Private Limited's case (cited supra) completely supports the stand of the respondent department. This court is not inclined to interfere with the penalty imposed by the Settlement Commission. The petitioners have not made out a case. As correctly contended, the very maintainability of the writ petitions is doubtful since the petitioners had already availed the remedy before the Settlement Commission. Thereafter they cannot come to this court for further improvement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 49 - D K Jain - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) ... vs B. N.Bhattacharjee & Anr on 4 May, 1979

37.As observed by Krishna Iyer, J. in CIT Vs. B.N.Bhattacharjee (1979) 4 SCC 121, the recommendation of the Wanchoo Committee was : (SCC p.128, para 20) "20....a compromise measure of a statutory settlement machinery where [a] big evader could make a disclosure, disgorge what the Commission fixes and thus buy quittance for himself and accelerate recovery of taxes in arrears by the State, although less than what may be fixed after long protracted litigation and recovery proceedings."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 2306 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... vs Hoganas India Ltd. And Ors. [Alongwith ... on 21 July, 2005

11.Mr.S.Renganathan, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a judgment of a division bench of Bombay High Court in Union of India Vs. Hoganas India Ltd. Reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 8 (Bom) for contending that the Settlement Commission has wide power to settle the matters including confiscation and immunity from criminal prosecution. Its powers cannot be restricted.
Bombay High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1