Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 70 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Andhra ... vs Jayalakshmi Rice And Oil Mills ... on 15 January, 1971

Sri Raja Reddy Nalla, Warangal vs Acit, Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad on 31 May, 2023

In this connection, reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Laxmi Rice Mills Ambala City (1 supra) wherein it was clarified that provisions of Section 271E are in pari materia with the provisions of Section 271D of the Act. However, this aspect of the matter was not considered by respondent No.1 while passing the impugned order.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Hind Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 30 August, 2023

On perusal of the ITAT Bangalore Bench in case of CIT Vs. Ranukeswara Rice Mills (supra) we are in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the ld CIT(A) that in that case the payment was made by appellant for purchase of agricultural produce through an agent one M/s. K. Parameswarappa & co. called as (KP) and hence that case was covered under the exceptions granted under 6DD(f) of the Rules.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 10 January, 2000

In (1) Tumkur Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 595 (T) (DB) (2) Superpax India Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1997 (96) E.L.T. 144 (T) (DB) (3) Maharaja International Ltd. v. C.C.E. - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 528 (T) (DB) (4) Prakash Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner - 1996 (85) E.L.T. 149 (T) (DB) (5) Maharaja International Ltd. v. Collector - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 466 (T) (DB) (6) Krishna Insulation v. Collector - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 220 (T) (7) Collector v. Bharat Wire Products - 1998 (99) E.L.T. 297 (8) Krishna Cold Rolled Sections Ltd. v. Commissioner 1996 (88) E.L.T. 98 (T) (SM) (9) Commissioner v. Rajalakshmi Mills - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 276 (T) (DB) the Tribunal had opined that the endorsed invoices are valid documents for claiming Modvat credit even after 1-4-1994 onwards. But contrary view has been expressed in -
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Vxl (India) Ltd. on 30 March, 2005

(viii) CIT v. Bharat Rice Mills (2001) 250 ITR 584 (P&H) In this case, the AO made the addition on the ground that the yield of rice and phak shown by the assessee was lower. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition. On appeal, against the Order of the CIT(A), the Tribunal deleted the addition on the ground that the yield shown by the assessee was fair and reasonable. Thus, even addition made on account of low yield was deleted and such Order was upheld by Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 18 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Income-Tax Officer vs Samir Builders on 3 August, 1987

3. Relying mainly on the ratio of Supreme Court decision in the cases of CIT v. Bagyalakshmi & Co. L1965] 55 ITR 660 and Agarwal & Co. v. CIT [1970] 77 ITR 10, the Respondent firm asserted that its representative partners may successfully hold dual capacities without affecting their rights and liabilities in the firm. It was claimed that by their becoming partners in the firm as representatives of their respective AOPs, all the members of such AOPs, including minors, do not become partners in the firm so as to subject the minors to losses of the firm. It was further explained that the 5 par cent indeterminate share of the members of the AOPs was not at all going to adversely affect either the genuineness or the very constitution of the Respondent firm.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 26 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next