Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Mohammed Abdul Kader vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 14 February, 1961

Vallabhdas Kanji (P.) Ltd. And Ors. vs The Sales Tax Officer, Special Circle, ... on 29 August, 1962

So far as this proposition is concerned, Mr. Surianarayana lyer did not controvert the same and he was prepared to proceed on the basis that the decisions laying down such a proposition, referred to above are correct. But Mr. Surianarayana lyer does controvert the stand taken by the Advocate Genera) that even after all the substantial amendments effected by T. C. Act 18 of 1955, Kerala Act 12, of 1957 and Kerala Act 3 of 1960, Travancore-Cochin Act 11 of 1125 is nevertheless to be considered as an existing law.
Kerala High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Quality Chemicals on 13 October, 1997

3. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the statistics relating to the gross profit highlighting its downfall in the current year and also about the alleged additional production outside the books, stressing upon the chemical formula on the basis of which the AO had detected suppression of production and its eventual sales. For his submissions the Departmental Representative relied on the decisions in Mangal Chand Gordhan Das vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 706 (Assam), Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. ITO (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj), Abdul Bhai Abdul Kadar vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 241 (Bom) and Homi Jehangir Cheesta vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (SC). The learned counsel fully supported the order of the CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Income Tax Officer vs Quality Chemicals. on 13 October, 1997

3. The learned Departmental Representative reiterated the statistics relating to the gross profit highlighting its downfall in the current year and also about the alleged additional production outside the books, stressing upon the chemical formula on the basis of which the AO had detected suppression of production and its eventual sales. For his submissions the Departmental Representative relied on the decisions in Mangal Chand Gordhan Das vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 706 (Assam), Vimal Chandra Golecha vs. ITO (1982) 134 ITR 119 (Raj), Abdul Bhai Abdul Kadar vs. CIT (1952) 22 ITR 241 (Bom) and Homi Jehangir Cheesta vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (SC). The learned counsel fully supported the order of the CIT(A).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1