But when once that is done, the problem is solved. (2)  INSC 57;  S. Moreshwar Parashram (1) that the material period starts Lawyer Chandigarh with the nomination and ends with the announcement was not a decision on the’ point. ” Article 102 of the Constitution which becomes incorporated in the section by reference is as follows: If, in any such suit or proceeding, at any stage, it appears to the Court that there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement between the parties, the Court may adjourn the proceeding for such period as it thinks fit, to enable attempts to be made to effect such a settlement.
But there must be cases in (1)  INSC 15;  S. Rohatgi, learned Attorney General who appeared for the Income Tax Department/Revenue, at the outset referred to the reasoning which was adopted by the ITAT and submitted that the ITAT had rightly interpreted the provisions even in respect to deemed tonnage and came to the correct conclusion that even slot charter arrangement has to be in respect of a qualifying ship. Surat Municipality(3) that no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident, and if it required an examination or argument to establish it.
Pathak for the first respondent contended on the strength of certain observations of Chagla, C. The theory of nexus as a source of jurisdiction to tax was thus abandoned, and the power to tax was annexed to the situs of the sale to be exercised by the State wherein it is fixed and as a given sale can take place only in one State and in no other, it must follow that the power of taxing that sale is capable of exercise only by one State and not others. Raman it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record.
Learned Counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which, the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated. On what principle the situs was fixed will presently be considered. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. as it proceeded on an agreed statement of counsel on both sides. This process must have the effect of eliminating multiple taxation, because a sale must be either inside or outside a State, and if it is inside one State it must be outside all other States.
Now we may examine how this provision is designed to put an end to multiple taxation. But if the sale is outside a State, article 286(1) (a) prohibits that State from taxing it. An assessment under 9. Apart from the above, we do not find any reason to hold that the bar applicable at the entry level is wiped out after the enrollment. If a sale is inside a State, the power of that State to tax it under Entry 54 remains unaffected.
The scheme of the enactment is to fix, what had not been done under the Government of India Act, 1935, the situs of the sale, and for that purpose, to classify it into two categories, sale inside the State and sale outside the State. 23(3) of the Act cannot be made only on bare suspcion. However, till a suitable amendment is made, the bar is operative only for two years in terms of the statutory provision.
When does an error cease to be mere error, and become an error apparent on the face of the record? His argument was that it is only the business of operation of qualifying ships that was covered by the Chapter. But as the appellant conceded before the Tribunal that the material date was the date of nomination and the entire trial proceeded on that basis, it is too late for him now to change his front and contend that the material date is 20th December, 1951.
Whereas under these provisions a State could tax irrespective of where a sale took place, provided there was sufficient territorial nexus, under article 286(1) (a) that power can be exercised only 771 when it takes place inside the State, mere nexi being insufficient to support such a power. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case.
The powers given to the Income-tax Officer under s. In this respect, article 286(1) (a) effected a fundamental alteration in the law under Entry 48 in List II and section 100(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, as construed by the courts. “A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, Advocates in Chandigarh a member of the Legislative Assembly of a State, if he is for the time being disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament under any of the provisions of article 102.
Having regard Chandigarh Advocates to the Chandigarh Lawyer object of the provision, the said Lawyer Chandigarh bar certainly operates post enrollment also. 23(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, however wide, do not entitle him to base the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. He read out the relevant portions of the discussion contained in the order of ITAT in this behalf and submitted that in order to get a particular income covered under these special provisions, it was necessary to fulfill all the conditions which are stipulated in various provisions of this Chapter.