1. Income Tax case — Concern regarding ipso facto application of Circular to group matters with cascading effect. (Para 2 )
Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. Kapadia, CJI., K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III - Petitioner
Versus
Surya Herbal Limited - Respondent
SLP (C) No. 0 of 2011 (CC No. 13694 of 2011)
Decided On : 29-08-2011
1. Income Tax case — Concern regarding ipso facto application of Circular to group matters with cascading effect. (Para 2 )
2. High Court should not apply Circular ipso facto when matter has cascading effect involving common principle in group matters. (Para 2 )
3. A circular should not be applied ipso facto when the matter has a cascading effect and involves a common principle. (Para 2 )
4. Liberty granted to Department to move High Court within two weeks; special leave petition disposed of. (Para 2 , 3 )
No; the High Court should not apply the Circular ipso facto when attention is drawn to the cascading effect and common principle involved in subsequent group matters. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
S.H. Kapadia, CJI., K.S.P. Radhakrishnan, Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Delay condoned.
2. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February, 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect. There are cases under the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which a common principle may be involved in subsequent group of matters or large number of matters. In our view, in such cases if attention of the High Court is drawn, the High Court will not apply the Circular ipso facto. For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks.
3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top