Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.85 seconds)The Finance Act, 2018
Section 17 in Finance Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Iswara Bhat vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 3 March, 1992
Subsequently, the second proviso was amended directing that all assessments relating to the years up to and including the year 1994 shall be completed on or before September 30, 1998. This amendment was made in the Finance Act of 1998, which came into force on July 29, 1998. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far as the proceedings in question in the present case are concerned, they cannot be saved by the second proviso. Learned counsel submitted that the proviso does not revive the assessments which have already become barred in view of the long delay taken in disposing of the same. Learned counsel also submitted that it does not appear from the proviso that it has got retrospective effect. Further, counsel submitted that the dictum in the decision reported in Iswara Bhat v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax [1993] 200 ITR 238 (Ker) ; 1992 (1) KLT 568, has been accepted for a long time and the Legislature has not passed any legislation taking away the applicability of that decision. Further he submitted that it cannot be prescribed that the Legislature will revive a thing, which has been closed unless from the statute itself it has become clear that it reopens closed transactions. On the other hand learned Government Pleader submitted that it cannot be disputed that the proceedings in the case was pending on the date on which the Amendment Act came into force. If that be so, then the proviso will apply to all cases. The word "pending" in the proviso cannot be interpreted to be only those cases which are pending validly.
The Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963
S. S. Gadgil, Income-Tax Officer, ... vs Lal And Company on 30 April, 1964
The Bench followed the decisions in S.S. Gadgil v. Lal and Co. [1964] 53 ITR 231 (SC) ; AIR 1965 SC 171 and J.P. Jani, Income-tax Officer v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt [1969] 72 ITR 595 (SC) ; AIR 1969 SC 778 and held that "by that time, as mentioned earlier, by applying the three years rule period for completing assessment was already over. Subsequent amendment cannot give the power of assessment to the officer in respect of an year for which the assessment has already become barred".
J.P. Jani, Income-Tax Officer, Circle ... vs Induprasad Devshankar Bhatt on 20 August, 1968
The Bench followed the decisions in S.S. Gadgil v. Lal and Co. [1964] 53 ITR 231 (SC) ; AIR 1965 SC 171 and J.P. Jani, Income-tax Officer v. Induprasad Devshanker Bhatt [1969] 72 ITR 595 (SC) ; AIR 1969 SC 778 and held that "by that time, as mentioned earlier, by applying the three years rule period for completing assessment was already over. Subsequent amendment cannot give the power of assessment to the officer in respect of an year for which the assessment has already become barred".
The Finance Act, 1996
State Of Gujarat vs Patel Raghav Natha & Ors on 21 April, 1969
In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha AIR 1969 SC 1297, the Supreme Court was dealing with Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which gives power of revision to the Commissioner. It held that the power has to be exercised within a reasonable time.
Nelliampathy Tea And Produce Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Agricultural ... on 10 October, 1990
12. Thus on a perusal of the above decisions, it is clear that the repository of the statutory power should be reasonable, that means that the Damocles' sword should not hang endlessly, at the caprice of any statutory authority. The order passed by the statutory authority should be reasonable. It shall be rational and fair. The Revenue should be able to demonstrate that there were circumstances beyond control or other supervening events or insurmountable difficulties, for not completing the proceedings. The statutory power conferred was used in the right and proper way. As was observed by Paripoornan, J. in Nelliampathy Tea and Produce Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax [1991] 190 ITR 227 (Ker) ; ILR 1991 (2) Ker 68 in a system based on rule of law, there is no unfettered or untrammelled discretion in any statutory or public authority. In the case at hand, when the Finance Act came into force, already the assessment proceedings had been pending for more than 16 to 18 years. The counter-affidavit does not give any reason for this unexplained delay. It is seen from the pleadings in this case that the returns were filed in time and that the petitioner had also produced account books earlier. But there was inaction on the part of the authority for a long time, viz., nearly 15 years, to continue the proceedings. No justification is forthcoming from the assessing authority. Hence, we are of the view that the proceedings have become stale and irrational at the time when the Finance Act, 1993 came into force. These proceedings were kept in cold storage not intended to be taken out.