Home Case Index All Cases Income TaxIncome Tax Section Wise Tri Income Tax - Tri This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Income Tax - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 3 of 3 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.

• 2016 (5) TMI 1447
  
  Eligibility conditions for promotion to the grade of Commissioner of Income Tax and the APARs - Held that:- It is an admitted position of the respondents that at the time of holding DPC the DGIT (Vigilance) had accorded vigilance clearance and there was no disciplinary case pending against the applicant. In para 4 (viii) and (ix) of the counter reply it has been categorically stated that the case of the applicant did not fall under any one of the three categories mentioned in DOP&T OM dated 14.09.1992. After a query raised by the ACC, the official respondents got in touch with the MHA who informed them that the first stage advice of CVC had been obtained for initiating major penalty proceedings against the officer. It is not clear as to how in respect of an officer of Indian Revenue Service working under respondents no.1 & 2, the CVC....... + More

  ---

• 2013 (9) TMI 1181
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e is a strong possibility of manipulation and therefore one representative from the promotee juniors shall also be included in the panel. 14 We think that this is a reasonable request. Justice must not only be done but must be also seen to be done. 15 But a word of caution. Our Constitution and democratic policy is welded to the theme of Rule of Law. Institutional Morality compels the government to accept without hesitation adjudicatory decisions. There is no provision for a pick and choose governance. In a fight for seniority and promotion by its employees, the senior levels of Government can only be a silent spectator and not an active participant lest it destroy their fundamentally impartial role. Dedication and Expedition is called for All the OA's being in the same gemre are hereby disposed of with the above directions to be scrupulously observed. No costs. MA Nos.302/2013 and 303/2013 in OA Nos.128/2013 and 129/2013 for production of documents are also disposed of.

  ---

• 2010 (1) TMI 1242
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e High Court of Allahabad. Moreover, in the related matter, the Hon’ble Apex Court ordered for maintaining the status quo with regard to seniority, and moreover this Tribunal is not the proper forum in order to ensure compliance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat and Hon’ble Apex Court. Considering all the circumstances and facts, as stated above, we are of the opinion that the impugned order dated 04.08.2010 deserves to be set aside, and in the light of the observations made in the body of the Order, it will not be suffice to set aside the impugned order but rather the O.A. is liable to be dismissed and as the applicant tried to place the misleading facts hence, O.A. is to be dismissed on heavy cost. 16. Above Modification/Recall Applications are allowed. The impugned order dated 04.08.2010 is set aside and recalled. And the O.A. No. 1084 of 2010 is also dismissed accordingly, and a heavy cost of ₹ 10,000/- is imposed on the applicant.

  ---

1