Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Athi V. Ramachandra Chettiar. on 12 November, 1963

Ttk Healthcare Tpa Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner on 12 October, 2020

In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'CHAMBER OF INCOME-TAX CONSULTANTS VS. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES', (1994) 75 TAXMAN 669 (BOMBAY), 'DR. DEVENDRA M SURTI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT', (1969) 1 SCR 235, 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. MANMOHAN DAS', (1996) 59 ITR 699 (SC), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. BHAGWAN BROKER AGENCY', (1993) 70 TAXMAN 453 (RAJASTHAN), 'COMMISSIONEROF INCOME- 14 TAX VS, LALLUBHAI NAGARDAS & SONS', (1993) 204 ITR 93 (CALCUTTA), 'STATE OF BOMBAY AND OTHERS VS. HOSPITAL MAZDOOR SABHA AND OTHERS', (1960) 2 SCR 866, 'DR.P.VADAMALAYAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', (1969) 74 ITR 94 (MADRAS), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. DR.V.K.RAMACHANDRAN', (1981) 6 TAXMAN 348 (MADRAS), 'NATVARLAL AMBALAL DAVE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', (1997 225 ITR 936 (GUJARAT), 'COMMISSIONEROF INCOME-TAX VS. UPASANA HOSPITAL', (1996) 89 TAXMAN 525 (KERALA), 'SRI.LAKSHMI TRUST VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX', (1995) 53 ITD 528 (BANGALORE), 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS. DR.K.K.SHAH', (1982) 135 ITR 146 (GUJARAT), 'COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VS. RATAN MELTING AND WIRE INDUSTRIES', (2008) 17 STT 103 (SC), 'UCO BANK VS.
Karnataka High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.R. Sethi vs Gurmauj Saran Baluja on 18 February, 1972

I, therefore, do not find any substance in the contention of the respondent that section 30 will apply to all cases irrespective of whether the cause of action for a suit filed after the commencement of the Limitation Act, 1963, arose before or after such commencement. In cases where the cause of action arose and the suit was also filed after the commencement of the Limitation Act, 1963, section 30 will have no application. There is a passing observation in the case reported in 1965 (1) Madras Law Journal 31 in re: The. Cemmissoner of lncome tax Madras v. Sri Athi V. Ramachandra Chettiar and another (1) saying,- "eqially simple will be the ease where the right to sue, appeal or apply accrues after the new Act comes-into force. In the latter case, it will only be the new Act that will have application. But where time to file an application or appeal had commenced to run under the old Act, but had not run out before the new Act commenced, there will arise a problem as to whether the provisions of the old or new Act should be applied......................... But where there is shorter period under the later enactment for presentation of suits, appeals or applications than the one provided for under the repeated Act, a hardship will undoubtedly be caused to the litigant. It is to provide for such a case that such a transitional provision is enacted in section 30 of the new Act."
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1