CHOTANAGPUR INDUSTRIAL GASES P LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(CAL)-1996-10-14
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 11,1996

CHOTANAGPUR INDUSTRIAL GASES (P.) LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PANNALAL BINJRAJ V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
HITESH CHANDAK V. CIT [REFERRED TO]
PRBHA DEVI CHANDAK V. CIT-II,CENTRAL CAL. [REFERRED TO]
DEBESH CHANDAK AND SONS V. CIT [REFERRED TO]
ANITA MAHESWARI V. CIT,CENTRAL-II,CAL. [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL ROLLER FLOUR MILLS (P.) LTD. V. CIT,CENTRAL-II,CAL. [REFERRED TO]
SAROJ DEVI CHANDAK V. CIT,CENTRAL-II,CAL. [REFERRED TO]
DIPESH CHANDAK V. CIT,CENTRAL-II,CAL. [REFERRED TO]
PANNALAL BINJRAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
AJANTHA INDUSTRIES VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYASANTHI INVESTMENTS PVT LIMITED VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
SAPTAGIRI ENTERPRISES VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

Sundarmal Patesaria and Sons HUF VS. Director of Income tax Investigation [LAWS(CAL)-2000-3-56] [REFERRED TO]
ARROW ALLOYS PVT. LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
SAHARA HOSPITALITY LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(BOM)-2012-9-185] [REFERRED TO]
BAL CHAND PUROHIT VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [LAWS(CAL)-2006-5-56] [REFERRED TO]
V V MINERALS VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2020-6-384] [REFERRED TO]
V.V.MINERALS VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-378] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Samaresh Banerjea, J. - (1.)The present writ applications have been heard analogously with items Nos. (3) to (9) as appearing under the heading "for order", common question of law and fact being involved.
(2.)In each of the writ applications, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by respondent No. 1, Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-II, Calcutta, under Section 127(1)/127(2) of the Income-tax Act, transferring all the cases of the petitioner from the present Assessing Officer in Calcutta to the Assessing Officer at Patna. Since the point which has been raised by the writ petitioner in the instant application really involved a pure question of law and both the parties have addressed the court in full on the questions of law even at the admission stage, I have decided to dispose of the writ application on such questions of law without any affidavit and the parties to the proceedings do not object to such proposal.
(3.)The main challenge of the writ petitioner to the aforesaid order passed under Section 127 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is that such transfer has been made denying reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is not disputed by the parties that each of the petitioners in each of the cases was issued with a show-cause notice proposing to transfer the case in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act. And that each of the petitioners also replied to such show-cause notice and was heard and was given a hearing.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.