Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1990 (8) TMI 73 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court sets aside Commissioner's non-speaking order under Income-tax Act, remands for proper decision. The court held that the Commissioner's order rejecting the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act was not a speaking order and ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Court sets aside Commissioner's non-speaking order under Income-tax Act, remands for proper decision.

                          The court held that the Commissioner's order rejecting the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act was not a speaking order and set it aside. The court remanded the case for the Commissioner to pass a proper order. The writ petitions were allowed, the Commissioner's order was set aside, and the applications were restored for a decision in accordance with the law, with each party bearing its own costs.




                          Issues Involved:

                          1. Whether the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were wrongly rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Whether the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were wrongly rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax:

                          The common question in these cases is whether the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were wrongly rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The applications were moved post a search and seizure operation conducted by authorized officers of the Income-tax Department at the residential premises of an individual on January 12, 1988.

                          Facts of the Case:
                          - The petitioners, including Smt. Ramjanki Devi, Nathulal Jain, and Mahaveer Kumar Jain, filed returns of income for the assessment year 1987-88, disclosing additional income and subsequently filed applications under section 273A of the Act for waiver of penalties and interest.
                          - The Commissioner rejected the applications, stating that the disclosures were not voluntary but made out of fear due to the search and seizure operations.

                          Petitioners' Arguments:
                          - The petitioners argued that their disclosures were voluntary, made in good faith, and prior to the detection of any concealment.
                          - They contended that the Commissioner did not provide a speaking order, which is required for quasi-judicial decisions.
                          - The petitioners cited various judicial precedents to support their claim that the Commissioner should have considered their applications on merits and provided reasons for rejection.

                          Revenue's Arguments:
                          - The Revenue argued that the disclosures were not voluntary but made after the petitioners became aware of the detection of concealed income.
                          - They highlighted that the petitioners' statements were contradictory and that the gifts mentioned were fictitious.
                          - The Revenue also contended that the petitioners had not satisfied the conditions for waiver under section 273A, including the requirement of voluntary and good faith disclosure.

                          Court's Analysis:
                          - The court examined whether the order passed by the Commissioner was a speaking order and whether the petitioners had made voluntary disclosures in good faith.
                          - It was noted that the order passed by the Commissioner was brief, cryptic, and did not address the grounds raised by the petitioners.
                          - The court emphasized that a quasi-judicial order must be a speaking order, providing reasons and addressing the grounds raised by the applicants.

                          Legal Precedents:
                          - The court referred to several judicial precedents, including Jakhodia Brothers v. CIT, Harjas Rai v. CIT, and Radhey Shyam Chandrika Prasad v. CIT, which highlighted the importance of voluntary disclosure and the requirement for a speaking order by the Commissioner.

                          Conclusion:
                          - The court held that the order passed by the Commissioner was not a speaking order and was liable to be set aside on this ground.
                          - The court did not delve into the second question of whether the disclosures were voluntary and in good faith, as it decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner for passing a proper order in accordance with law.

                          Order:
                          - The writ petitions were allowed, and the order dated September 12, 1989, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was set aside.
                          - The applications under section 273A of the Act were restored, and the Commissioner was directed to decide the applications in accordance with law.
                          - Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found