New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 525 - SUPREME COURT

2015 (8) TMI 525 - SUPREME COURT - [2015] 377 ITR 112 (SC) - Existence of substantial questions of law - whether deductions to be made under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were allowable on facts? - Held that:- We find that as a matter of fact what assessee has argued before us is reiterated by the very Division Bench which heard and reserved judgment on 16.09.2010 (9) TMI 679 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT ]. By the review order dated 08.04.2013 [2013 (12) TMI 369 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT ], the Di .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

udgment dated 08.04.2013 [2013 (12) TMI 369 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT]

Whether transport subsidies were or were not available together with other incentives - Held that:- Insofar as the second question is concerned, we accept the submission of assesssee that High Courts being Courts of Record under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact inhere in them. This was in fact so decided in a slightly different context while dealing with the power of review of wri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Apart from what has been said by us, it is also clear that on a cursory reading of Section 260A (7), the said Section does not purport in any manner to curtail or restrict the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 260A(7) only states that all the provisions that would apply qua appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to appeals under Section 260A. That does not in any manner suggest either that the other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are ne .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Sadhana Sandhu,Adv., Mrs. Anil Katiyar,Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Gopal Subramanian,Sr.Adv., Ms. Kavita Jha,Adv., Ms. Mehak Gupta,Adv., Mr. Ramesh Goenka,Adv., Mr. Sunil Murarka,Adv., Mr. Kunal Chatterji,Adv., Mr. Tavish Bhusan Prasad,Adv., Mr. Saransh Kumar,Adv., Ms. Sadhna Saxena,Adv. ORDER The Civil Appeal No. 10495/2013 and Civil Appeal 1619 of 2012 arise out of two judgments delivered by the High Court of judicature at Guwahati. By the first judgment dated 16.09.2010 various points on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d against the assessee. However, the second question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee, and against Revenue, and the appeal was disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 16.09.2010, a Review Petition being No. 108/2010 was filed by the assessee before the very Division Bench. In a long judgment dated 08.04.2013, the Division Bench recalled its earlier order dated 16.09.2010 in the following terms: "125. In the present case, since this .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

estions of law for adjudication in the appeal that the appeal could or ought to have been heard. 126. As the omission, on our part, to formulate the substantial questions of law and, then, invite the parties to have their say in the matter amount to denial of opportunity of effective hearing to the parties concerned, particularly, to the review petitioners, we must have the magnanimity and courage to acknowledge our mistake, recall the judgment and order dated 16.09.2010, and, then, decide the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ntial questions of law have been framed and that such questions are to be found in the very beginning of the judgment dated 16.09.2010 itself. He further argued, referring us to Section 260A (7), that only those provisions of the Civil Procedure Code could be looked into for the purposes of Section 260A as were relevant to the disposal of appeals, and since the review provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure is not so referred to, the High Court would have no jurisdiction under Section .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n Bench, however, went ahead and by its judgment dated 16.09.2010 referred to two questions and went on to answer them. Insofar as the second submission of Mr. Radhakrishnan is concerned, Mr. Subramaniam argued that the High Court being a Court of Record under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would inhere in it as such. We have heard both the parties. We find that as a matter of fact what Mr. Subramaniam has argued before us is reiterated by the very Division Bench whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with the impugned judgment in view of what has been recorded in the impugned judgment dated 08.04.2013. Insofar as the second question is concerned, we accept the submission of Mr. Subramaniam that High Courts being Courts of Record under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact inhere in them. This was in fact so decided in a slightly different context while dealing with the power of review of writ petitions filed under Art.226 by a judgment reported in AIR 1963 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version