SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Kar) 88

S.RAJENDRA BABU, M.RAMA JOIS
N. KRISHAN (DECD. BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, K. BADRINARAYAN – Appellant
Versus
SETTLEMENT COMMISSION – Respondent


M. RAMA JOIS, J.

( 1 ) IN these four petitions presented by the same person praying for quashing the order passed by the Settlement Commission (Income-tax and Wealth-tax) constituted under the provisions of the income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), the following two questions of law arise for consideration :

" (1) Whether a person who approaches the Income-tax Settlement Commission constituted under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a full and final settlement of his case is entitled to question the legality of its decision in a petition under article 226 of the constitution of India ?

(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, what is the scope for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India against a decision of the Settlement Commission ?"

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was a regular assessee being assessed to income-tax the provision of the Act. He was the managing director of Internation instruments Limited, a public limited company, established under the technical collaboration with a German-based company VDO Tachometer Werke Gmbh ("vdo" for short ). The petitioner was intereste



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top