Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Cloth Traders (P) Ltd., Etc vs Addl. Commr. Of Income Tax, ... on 4 May, 1979

Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium, ... vs Assessee on 26 August, 2015

9. In the present case on hand, the contributions are not deposited as prescribed under the P.F. Act., but the payments are made before the due date of furnishing the return under section 139(1) as required by law under section 43B. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the case on hand is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka P. Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) and also the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of Imerys Ceramics (India) P. Ltd., (supra). Respectfully following the above decisions, we are of the opinion that the assessment order is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue 9 ITA.No.620/Hyd/2015 M/s. Nuzivedu Swati Coastal Consortium, Hyderabad.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Becton Dickinson India Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Delhi Iii on 2 June, 2015

(P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2000) 5 SCC 373, the Apex court has held that when appeal is dismissed by the Apex court, even if by a non-speaking order, the doctrine of merger applies, that the Apex court in another judgment in the case of Waman Rao vs. Union of India reported in (1981) 2 SCC 362 has held that it is sufficient for invoking the Rule of stare decisis that a certain decision was arrived at on a question which arose or was argued, no matter on what reason the decision rests or what is the basis of the decision, or in another words, for the purpose of applying the Rule of stare decisis, it is unnecessary to inquire or determine as to what was the rationale of the earlier decision which is said to operate as stare decisis, that in view of this, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Coimbatore vs. Saberwal Surgical (P) Ltd. (supra) which has been affirmed by the Apex court by the way of dismissal of the Government civil appeal, becomes a binding precedent, that in view of this, in the expression the disposable and non-disposable Cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins and blood vessels and Cannula for intra-corporal spaces the words blood vessels have to be read independent of the preceding expression disposable and non-disposable Cannula for aorta, vena cavae and similar veins or in another words, the word similar before the word veins would not qualify the words blood vessels, and that since the Cannula, in question, are meant for blood vessels, the same are covered by the exemption. Shri Ravinder Narain, also pleaded that the entire case of the Department against the appellant is based on the opinion given by an officer of the DGHS and before acting on the opinion given by the DGHS Officer his cross-examination should have to be allowed and without permitting the cross examination of Dr. P. Ravindran of DGHS, the opinion given by him cannot be acted upon. Shri Narain also referred to the statement of Dr. Prabhu Vinayagam of the appellant company wherein he has stated that the Venflon Cannula being manufactured by the appellant can be used in respect of the veins like Cephalic Veins, Basilic Veins and Metacarpel Veins etc. for intravenous drug administration, intravenous fluids or for infusing blood and these veins are similar to the vena cavae.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Hcl Infosystems Ltd on 21 December, 2015

36. That the above amendments were intended to be prospective, since there is nothing to the contrary stated therein, is fairly well settled. The decisions in Guffic Chem. P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2011) 332 ITR 602 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) are illustrative of this legal position.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 Next