Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › Dholadhar Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Dholadhar Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: February 21, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (Dholadhar_Investment_ITAT_duties.pdf)


S. 254: Tribunal is not required to consider pleadings, material etc to which its pointed attention is not drawn

It is true, as held by the Supreme Court in a long line of cases that the Tribunal is duty-bound to consider all the grounds, the evidence produced and consider the contentions of the parties before it and all other material brought to its notice in a judicial spirit and should not feel incommoded by technicalities: The duty is limited to the points raised before it. It would be placing an impossible burden on the Tribunal if it is ordained to rule upon aspects and contentions which were not raised by the parties before it or to deal with pleadings, evidence or material to which its pointed attention was not drawn in the course of the proceedings and which lies buried in the forest of papers filed by the parties.

Related Judgements

  1. FGP Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Though the assessee was following the mercantile system and was entitled to royalty under an agreement, the royalty was not assessable in accordance with the principles of real income, in view of the dispute pending in arbitration.
    Read more ›
  2. CIT vs. S. K. Katyal (Delhi High Court) 

    HELD in the context of s. 158BE (1) (b) which imposes a time limit for making a block assessment order with reference to the date of execution of the last of the authorizations for search u/s 132 which in turn is deemed to be the date of the conclusion…
  3. CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast (Bombay High Court Full Bench) 

    In Shruti Colorants a Division Bench held that where there was a delay in filing Appeals u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act (= s. 260A of the IT ACT), the Court had no power to condone the delay by taking recourse to s. 5 of the Limitation Act.
     
    This…
  4. CIT vs. Grasim Industries (Bombay High Court) 

    Once the Apex Court in Hongo India 236 E.L.T. 417 has held that the High Court has no power to condone delay in filing Appeal under s. 35 G of the Excise Act, we have no option but to hold that this Court has no power to condone…
  5. CIT vs. Anil Hastkala (Rajasthan High Court) 

    There cannot be two opinions about the irresistible conclusion that the orders of the settlement commission having been passed without a reasonable hearing, examination of records and due application of mind is in violation of s.245-D(4) and not sustainable.Read more ›

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*