A.Rasheeda vs Velathal on 8 December, 2021
(iii) 2015 (3) CTC 54 (Vasumathi H.Shah vs. Pushpa Raju);
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.45 seconds)Documents citing
Ms.Vasumathi H.Shah vs Mr.Pushpa Raju on 12 April, 2019
The vs T.V.Satyapal)
3. 2015-3-L.W.875 (Vasumathi Shah vs. Pushpa Raju)
Acc Ltd., Mumbai vs Addl Cit(Ltu) , Mumbai on 28 February, 2023
30. The argument of Ms. V. Pushpa, learned Senior Standing Counsel is
by referring to the substantial questions of law framed by the assessee
and it is submitted that if the receipts from sale of carbon credit has to
be treated as a capital receipt, then the assessee could not have claimed
it as a deduction under section 80-IA of the Act and if the substantial
question of law as framed by the assessee is to be answered, it should
be answered against the assessee.
The Income Tax Officer (Osd) vs M/S. Anand Citi Centre Holdings P. Ltd on 2 February, 2021
3. We have heard Ms. V. Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant and Mr. R. Sivakumar, learned counsel for the respondent.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. R.K. Textiles on 25 January, 2021
(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Ms. V. Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for
the appellant/Revenue and Mr. N.Quadir Hoseyn for the respondent/
Assessee.
M/S. Udevar Eswtate Investments vs The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 February, 2021
(iv) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had
exceeded the scope of appeal filed by the department, in
holding that profit on sale of shares should also be treated
as business income when no such ground was raised by the
Department before the Tribunal?”
Page 3/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.259 of 2010
.3. We have heard Mr. M.P. Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. V. Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent.
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. T. Manjula on 21 June, 2021
(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Ms. V. Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant/Revenue and M. Kaushik, learned counsel for the
respondent/assessee.
N.Govindarajan vs S.Srinivasan
In VASUMATHI H. SHAH VS. PUSHPA RAJU [2015 (3) CTC 54], this Court has observed as under:
Kamalakannan vs Seenivasan on 4 July, 2024
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the
face of it, the plaint is liable to be rejected. He would submit that the
rights of the parties have been decided in the earlier round of litigation and
therefore, the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to him, when the
suit does not even disclose any cause of action, the trial Court ought to
have rejected the same at the threshold. The learned counsel would also
rely upon the judgments of this Court reported in (2008) 3 MLJ 371
(C.E.Sulochana and others Vs., C.E.Sathyanarayana Reddy), (2008) 3
MLJ 821 (M.Somasundaram and another Vs., District Collector-cum-
Accommodation Controller, Chennai and others) and 2015 (3) CTC 54
(Vasumathi H.Shah vs., Pushpa Raju) in support of his arguments.
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kamalakannan vs Seenivasan on 4 July, 2024
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on the
face of it, the plaint is liable to be rejected. He would submit that the
rights of the parties have been decided in the earlier round of litigation and
therefore, the trial Court erred in rejecting the application filed under
Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. According to him, when the
suit does not even disclose any cause of action, the trial Court ought to
have rejected the same at the threshold. The learned counsel would also
rely upon the judgments of this Court reported in (2008) 3 MLJ 371
(C.E.Sulochana and others Vs., C.E.Sathyanarayana Reddy), (2008) 3
MLJ 821 (M.Somasundaram and another Vs., District Collector-cum-
Accommodation Controller, Chennai and others) and 2015 (3) CTC 54
(Vasumathi H.Shah vs., Pushpa Raju) in support of his arguments.
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis