Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Shardaben B. Mafatlal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 2 December, 1988

Brij Mohan Lal vs Gift-Tax Officer on 23 August, 1991

8. Be that as it may, there is an order of the ITAT made on identical facts in the case of Mrs. VidyaWatiMunjal (supra) and it is an admitted fact that no reference application has been filed by that assessee against the said order of the ITAT, but this proposition can also not be denied that the assessment has to be in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Act, i.e., an assessment has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Act - Law, and that does include decisions of the High Courts/ Supreme Court.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dy. Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs Dr. N. P. Tolani. on 21 November, 1989

8. Finally, we may state that we are primarily concerned with the question of the manner of valuing the shares of private limited companies which are not quoted at the Stock Exchange and not whether rule 1D is mandatory or directory. The Supreme Court has spelt out the principles that should be followed for making valuation of such shares. The Bombay High Court have relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, those in the case of Mahadeo Jalan (supra) and CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia [1980] 122 ITR 38 for giving their finding in their latest pronouncement in Mrs. Shardaben D. Mafatlals case (supra). Therefore, we do not consider it necessary to re-consider our decision of this issue. The arguments advanced by Shri Prasad in this regard are, therefore, rejected.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1