Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.21 seconds)

Income Tax Officer vs M.K. Mohammed Kunhi on 11 September, 1968

12. The first question to be decided is whether the petitioner has any alternative statutory remedy against the order dt. 7th May, 2003 of the Asstt. CIT which is under challenge in WP(C) No. 4937 of 2003. Against this order dt. 7th May, 2003 rejecting the application under Sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act, no appeal has been provided under the Act as in the appeal provisions in Sections 246 and 246A of the Act, we do not find any mention of the order under Sub-section (6) of Section 220 as an appealable order either before the Dy. CIT(A) or before the CIT(A). The petitioner, however, has filed applications for stay before the CIT(A). There is no express power vested under the Act on the CIT(A) to grant stay, but express power has been vested under Sub-section (6) of Section 220 of the Act on the AO not to treat the assessee as being in default pending appeal before the CIT(A). The decision of the Supreme Court in M.K. Mohammed Kunhi's case (supra) is on the point that the Tribunal has the implied power to grant stay as incidental and ancillary to its appellate jurisdiction and not that the CIT(A) has the implied power to grant stay in appeals pending before him.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 478 - A N Grover - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Member, Sales Tax Tribunal And Anr. on 19 August, 1971

This Court in State of Orissa v. Member, Sales-tax Tribunal (supra) after considering the said decision of the Supreme Court has held that express power of stay in some other authority conferred under the Act will rule out implied power in the appellate authority to grant stay and a CIT(A) in Orissa is bound to follow the decision of this Court and not of any other High Court in the absence of any decision of the Supreme Court on a point.
Orissa High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next