Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.33 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Km. Kr. Kr. Ramanathan Chettiar By ... vs N.M. Kandappa Goundan (Died) And Ors. on 21 April, 1950
"In the accounting year ending 31.03.1942 the assessee received from her non-resident husband, sums of money amounting to Rs.9180/- which was remitted to India by bank-drafts obtained in the name of his agent. The agent paid the amounts return of these items for assessment Proceedings under S.34 of the Income-tax Act were initiated against her on 25.07.1949 after the expiry of 4 years. Under S.34 of the Income-tax Act, before it was amended in 1948, the period of limitation was 4 years for failure to submit a return. Therefore, the remedy was barred on 31.03.1947. The amendment came into operation on 30.03.1948. It was held that the amendment which enlarged the period of re-assessment could not be applied. The learned Judges relied on an earlier Division Bench decision, Ramanathan Chettiar v. Kandappa Goundan, (1950) 2 Mad LJ 624: (AIR 1951 Mad 314), where it was stated by the Division Bench as follows:
Govinddas & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Income Tax Officer & Another on 18 December, 1975
10.In Govinddas v. I-T.Officer (AIR 1977 SC 552) in paragraph No.10, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the above view as follows:-
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Bhajan Kaur & Ors on 8 May, 2008
11.Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Bhajan Kaur (AIR 2008 SC 2276) wherein, it has been held that the amending Act 54 of 1994 amending Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is only a prospective legislation.
Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others on 23 February, 1953
8.One of the earliest judgments, wherein law on this subject came to be analysed is Hoosein Kasam Dada (India) Ltd., v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1953 SC 221) wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "the right of appeal is a substantive right and not merely a matter of procedure, and this right becomes vested in a party when the proceedings are first initiated in, and before a decision is given by, the inferior Court, and such a right cannot be taken away except by express enactment or necessary intendment."