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

2000 Supreme(Del) 99

ARUN KUMAR, D.K.JAIN
AJIT JAIN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MUKUL ROHTAGI, P.L.BANSAL, R.D.Jolly, RAJIV NAYAR, SAURABH KIRPAL

D. K. Jain, J.

( 1 ) RULE D. B.

( 2 ) SINCE a short point of law is involved and there is not much controversy on facts, with the consent of counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the petition finally at this stage itself.

( 3 ) THE petitioner, an individual and claiming himself to be the Managing Director of an incorporated company, impugnes in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the legality and the validity of the authorisation dated 11th January, 1996, issued by Director of Income-tax (Inv), Chennai - respondent No. 4 herein, under Section 132 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"); the subsequent conduct of search by the Assistant Director of Income-tax (Inv) - respondent No. 5 herein, on the same date and finally the block assessment order, dated 31st January, 1997, passed under Section 158 BC/144 of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner, Special Range 31, New Delhi - respondent No. 2 herein.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he and the company, of which he is the Managing Director, are regular assesses at Delhi with permanent account numbers; the company is carrying on business of imports in PU Synthetic Linings along with other



































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