Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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 :

        📋
        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

        <h1>Challenge to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal VP Appointments Dismissed</h1> <h3>Aniruthan Versus Union of India, The President Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, The Secretary to Government Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, Rajpal Yadav, Mahavir Singh, Sushma Chowla</h3> The challenge to the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 to the office of the Vice President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was dismissed. The court ... Appointment of respondents 4 and 5 to the office of the Vice President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - principal objection of the petitioner is that these interim orders of the Apex Court do not apply to an appointment made on 22.01.2020 - HELD THAT:- Upon perusal of the minutes of the Search-cum-Selection Committee meeting on 08.04.2019, it is clear that the Search-cum-Selection Committee took into account the interim order of the Supreme Court in KUDRAT SANDHU VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [2018 (3) TMI 643 - SUPREME COURT] which was part of the ROJER MATHEW VERSUS SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & OTHERS [2019 (11) TMI 716 - SUPREME COURT] batch, and proceeded to record that the said interim order mandated that all appointments made pursuant to the selection by the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee shall abide by the conditions of service as per the old Act and the Rules. Thus, it is evident that the interim Search-cum-Selection Committee acted strictly in accordance with the interim orders passed in Rojer Mathew as subsequently recorded in MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2020 (12) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT]. The petitioner has completely failed to establish that the appointments are contrary to the relevant parent Act or the rules framed thereunder. Accordingly, there is no merit in the petitioner’s challenge - Petition dismissed. Issues:Challenge to the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 to the office of the Vice President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal based on the striking down of Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules 2017 by the Supreme Court in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd.Analysis:The petitioner contested the appointment of respondents 4 and 5 to the Vice President office of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd., where the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules 2017 were invalidated. The petitioner argued that the Search-cum-Selection Committee's constitution did not align with the Supreme Court's directives in Rojer Mathew or with the pre-existing laws. The petitioner claimed that the interim orders in Rojer Mathew did not validate the appointments of respondents 4 and 5, as those orders only applied to appointments pending during the disposal of the writ petitions in Rojer Mathew.The Union, on the other hand, contended that appointments made in compliance with interim directions were protected, referencing paragraphs from the judgment in Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court clarified that appointments made during the pendency of Rojer Mathew and after its judgment were to be governed by the existing parent Acts and Rules until the new Rules came into effect. The Search-cum-Selection Committee meeting minutes from 08.04.2019 indicated adherence to the interim orders of the Supreme Court, ensuring appointments followed the conditions of service under the old Act and Rules.The court analyzed the petitioner's objection, emphasizing that the interim orders applied to all appointments made before the 2020 Rules came into effect. The appointments made on 22.01.2020 were found to be in line with the Supreme Court's interim orders and directives. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any inconsistency with the relevant parent Act or rules, leading to the dismissal of the challenge. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. W.M.P.No.709 and 710 of 2021 were also closed.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found