Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Poonam Chand Manmal Trust on 12 October, 1987
In CIT v. Poonam Chand Manmal Trust [1988] 171 ITR 153 (Raj), the application under section 256(1) of the Act was rejected on the ground that requisite copies of documents were not filed.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay vs Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. on 6 April, 1961
In the case at hand, the Tribunal has not even formed an opinion as to whether the suggested questions were questions of law arising out of its appellate order or not. Nay, it has simply refused to apply its mind to the questions, influenced by the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is not a case of mere failure on the part of the Tribunal to deal with a question raised before it, a situation contemplated by principle No. 2 of Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd.s case [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC) (see para 8 (page 211 above)). The remedy of the person aggrieved (i.e., the Department) was to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226/227 of the Constitution. The remedy under section 256(2) was not available to it. The petitioner was rightly advised to file CWP No. 1725 of 1996.
Section 254 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Prakashwati on 10 January, 1994
Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 646; [1992] 63 Taxman 508 (SC); CIT v. Smt. Prakashwati [1994] 210 ITR 567 (All); CWT v. Girdhari Lal Saraf [1991] 190 ITR 264 (Raj); and CWT v. Executors of Late D. T. Udeshi [1991] 189 ITR 319 (Bom)).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Nopany Education Trust on 14 December, 1984
In CIT v. Nopany Education Trust [1986] 159 ITR 367 (Cal); CIT v. Poonam Chand Manmal Trust [1988] 171 ITR 153 (Raj); Prem Narain Khurana v. CIT [1986] 162 ITR 297 (All); S. P. Jaiswal v. CIT [1969] 73 ITR 179 (P&H) it has been held that the remedy under section 256(2) is available only if the rejection be referable to the ground set out in section 256(1).
Sh. S.P. Jaiswal Etc vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 6 March, 1997
In S. P. Jaiswals case [1969] 73 ITR 179 (P& H), the application under section 256(1) was rejected as barred by time.
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay vs Imperial Surgical Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. on 22 August, 1991
Negligible amounts of revenue is one of the relevant considerations for refusing the reference. (see CIT v. Imperial Surgical Co. (P.)