Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)
Documents citing Mohammed Sherief vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 November, 2022

Kakanatil Abdul Rahiman Siraj Mather vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 December, 2025

5. Per contra, Sri.Navaneeth, the learned Standing Counsel, would contend that a satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the 7 ITA No.84 of 2025 and con.cases 2025:KER:96474 searched person, and insofar as the AO of the searched person and the appellant herein are one and the same, there is no requirement for recording satisfaction with respect to the AO of the "other person". He would also rely on Mohammed Sherief (supra) in support of this contention. In reply, Sri.Asokan would contend that while the searched person was at Calicut, the appellant was at Ernakulam, and the AOs were not the same officers.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A M Mustaque - Full Document

Kakanatil Abdul Rahiman Siraj Mather vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 December, 2025

5. Per contra, Sri.Navaneeth, the learned Standing Counsel, would contend that a satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the 7 ITA No.84 of 2025 and con.cases 2025:KER:96474 searched person, and insofar as the AO of the searched person and the appellant herein are one and the same, there is no requirement for recording satisfaction with respect to the AO of the "other person". He would also rely on Mohammed Sherief (supra) in support of this contention. In reply, Sri.Asokan would contend that while the searched person was at Calicut, the appellant was at Ernakulam, and the AOs were not the same officers.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A M Mustaque - Full Document

Kakanatil Abdul Rahiman Siraj Mather vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 December, 2025

5. Per contra, Sri.Navaneeth, the learned Standing Counsel, would contend that a satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the 7 ITA No.84 of 2025 and con.cases 2025:KER:96474 searched person, and insofar as the AO of the searched person and the appellant herein are one and the same, there is no requirement for recording satisfaction with respect to the AO of the "other person". He would also rely on Mohammed Sherief (supra) in support of this contention. In reply, Sri.Asokan would contend that while the searched person was at Calicut, the appellant was at Ernakulam, and the AOs were not the same officers.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A M Mustaque - Full Document

Kakanatil Abdul Rahiman Siraj Mather vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax on 15 December, 2025

5. Per contra, Sri.Navaneeth, the learned Standing Counsel, would contend that a satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the 7 ITA No.84 of 2025 and con.cases 2025:KER:96474 searched person, and insofar as the AO of the searched person and the appellant herein are one and the same, there is no requirement for recording satisfaction with respect to the AO of the "other person". He would also rely on Mohammed Sherief (supra) in support of this contention. In reply, Sri.Asokan would contend that while the searched person was at Calicut, the appellant was at Ernakulam, and the AOs were not the same officers.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A M Mustaque - Full Document

M/S. Quilon Hotels And Resorts Pvt. ... vs State Of Kerala on 16 December, 2025

5. Per contra, Sri.Navaneeth, the learned Standing Counsel, would contend that a satisfaction was recorded by the AO of the 7 ITA No.84 of 2025 and con.cases 2025:KER:96474 searched person, and insofar as the AO of the searched person and the appellant herein are one and the same, there is no requirement for recording satisfaction with respect to the AO of the "other person". He would also rely on Mohammed Sherief (supra) in support of this contention. In reply, Sri.Asokan would contend that while the searched person was at Calicut, the appellant was at Ernakulam, and the AOs were not the same officers.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - A M Mustaque - Full Document
1