Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(a) appeals,

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(c) applications for review, and

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Petition dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '504643',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
			'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => '',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) appeals,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) applications for review, and</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Petition dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
			'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '504643',
		(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs Income Tax Officer Special Circle I Nagpur and Others - Citation 504643 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '504643',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'Miscellaneous Petition No. 386 of 1955

',
		'appellant' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Seth Paluram Dhanania Vs. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Sections 307 & 324: [Lokeshwar Singh Panta & B.Sudershan Reddy,JJ]  Assault Proof - Appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased - Testimony of eye-witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant and deceased - No evidence to indicate any previous enmity between parties - Single blow of sickle had been inflicted by appellant on back of deceased - Incised wound allegedly inflicted by appellant - However opinion of doctor proved that deceased had not died due to direct result of said injury Held, Appellant is therefore liable to be convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C., Sentence of 3 years imprisonment reduced to period undergone by appellant considering mental agony suffered by him -  ' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1958-03-08',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => '',
		'judgement' => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.</p><p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.</p><p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.</p><p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.</p><p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.</p><p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.</p><p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.</p><p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -</p><p>(a) appeals,</p><p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,</p><p>(c) applications for review, and</p><p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).</p><p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.</p><p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.</p><p>Petition dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '[1960]39ITR429(MP)',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, and Others.',
		'sub' => 'Direct Taxation',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '504643',
	(int) 1 => 'seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/504643/seth-paluram-dhanania-vs-officer-special'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Surajmal v. State of M.P. In<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>In the view we are taking of the preliminary objection in this case, it is not necessary to give any but the main facts.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>The Income-tax Investigation Commission started a case against the petitioner, in which the latter offered a settlement and agreed that 'in case any other item of income comes to light in the future, the Commission shall be free to report the same and the Department to assess it in accordance with law.' The Commission favourably considered the terms and recommended that no proceedings by way of penalty or prosecution be taken against him. The order of the Commission is exhibit P-2 and the application for settlement exhibit P-1. The Central Government having accepted he terms and conditions of settlement, they were ordered to be recorded under section 8-A of the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, and the case to be disposed of by the Commission. This was on September 29, 1950.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>On August 5, 1954, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, issued seven notices under section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1941-42 to 1947-48 (both inclusive). These cases of the petitioner were then transferred to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle XIII, Calcutta, by an order of the Central Board of Revenue under section 5(7A) of the Income-tax Act on August 25, 1954. While the matter was pending there, the Central Board of Revenue passed another order on January 22, 1955, under section 5(7A) of the Act transferring the cases to the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. Proceedings are pending before the last Officer at Delhi and action on the notices issued on August 5, 1954, is being taken by him.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>The present petition was filed on September 16, 1955 and was directed against all the three officers above-named and the Union of India. It questioned the legality of the action taken and asked that the notices under section 34(1A) and 34(1)(a) be quashed. It also sought similar relief against two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act issued by the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi, for the years 1948-49 and 1949-50 and seven others under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act 1940, for the years 1941-42 to 1948-49 by the Excess Profits Tax Officer, Central Circle V, New Delhi. The Union of India was subsequently given up.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>The Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, stated on affidavit that the only proceedings pending before him were under section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as applied to Raigarh State for the assessment years 1948-49 and 1949-50. Since none of the cases in which interference was sought was pending before him, he requested that he be discharged. The Income-tax Officer, Central circle V, who also happens to be the Excess Profits Tax Officer, claimed that there was no jurisdiction in this court to deal with these cases.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>The preliminary objection centered round this point. Shri Adhikari (Advocate-General), who appeared for the petitioner, did not press that the two notices under section 34 of the Income-tax Act and the seven notices under section 15 of the Excess Profits Tax Act could be quashed here. He said that it was possible to hold that that matter was not within the jurisdiction of this court. He contended, however, that the seven notices issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, could be brought before this court and quashed. He relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, that certiorari issues against the record and the author of the notices being within the jurisdiction of this court, he should justify his action and if necessary obtain the record of the cases to do so. The objectors rely upon the analysis of the case and the observations in the Full Bench case reported in Surajmal v. State of M.P. The objectors also contend that even the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>There can be no doubt that none of the three officers, against whose action writs are asked, are within the jurisdiction of this court. They are permanently located and normally carry on their activities elsewhere. In view of the observations of their Lordships in Election Commission, India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao the writs of this court cannot run to them. This was also the view in Surajmal v. State of M.P. In view of this, we must hold that we have no jurisdiction in these cases even if the notices were first issued by the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle I, Nagpur.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>The learned Advocate-General next relied upon section 59(4) of the States Reorganisation Act. That section in terms does not apply to the case in hand. It covers -',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) appeals,',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court,',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) applications for review, and',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) other proceedings, where any such proceedings seek any relief in respect of any orders passed by the High Court at Nagpur before the appointed day (November 1, 1956).',
	(int) 12 => '<p>It is clear enough that the present case does not belong to any of the categories mentioned above.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>The petition thus fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsels fee Rs. nil as no certificate is filed.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>Petition dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 15 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 16
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109