3 and 4. (2) Accountant General & Anr. v. S. Doriswamy & Ors.

4 SCC 93Reported decision1981#20767 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2017.

Judgments citing 3 and 4. (2) Accountant General & Anr. v. S. Doriswamy & Ors.

Boston Scientific India Pvt. Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/321/2017HC Delhi24 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 29(1)Section 29ASection 29A(4)Section 31(2)Section 31(5)Section 33(1)(a)Section 34Section 36

…the Award. With the insertion of Section 29A to the Act, the time limit for making of the Award has been re-introduced and so is the power of the Court to enlarge such time. 30. In Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. vs. C.Rajasekhar Rao (1987) 4 SCC 93, the Supreme Court, albeit in the context of the Arbitration Act, 1940, has held that the Court has the power to extend the time even after the Award has been given or after the expiry of the period prescribed for the Award, but, the Court has to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner. In fact, the power could be exercised by the Appellat…

The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs. Madhu Enterprises

ITTA/455/2017HC Telangana06 Jul 2017

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(T) No. 134 of 2016 M/s. Ramkrishna Forgings Limited registered office at Ramkrishna Chambers, 72, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata and its works at Baliguma, Kolabira, Seraikela Kharswan through its Senior General Manager (Finance), Rahul Kumar Bagaria ..... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Finance Department, Project Building, HEC, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Project Build…

Pr. Commissioner of I. Tax-Delhi-2 vs. M/S Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd

ITA/486/2016HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 34

…s an error in the construction of contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction. But, if he wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits a jurisdictional error (see Associated Engg. Co. v. Govt. of A.P., (1991) 4 SCC 93; and Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Ltd. v. Eastern Engg. Enterprises, (1999) 9 SCC 283). 12. In this context, a reference can usefully be made to the observations of this Court in Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 588, wherein it was observed that the Contract Act does not enable a party to a contract to ignore th…

S.l. Shiva Raj vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITTA/134/2016HC Telangana14 Jul 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY