Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.36 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Jindal Exports Limited on 6 February, 2009 cites

Allied Motors (P) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi on 10 March, 1997

33. The fourth and final submission of Mr Vohra was that the amendments made in sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the said Act were curative and, therefore, had retrospective operation. The amendments had been brought in to remove the unintended anomaly and were clarificatory in nature. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Raman Lal Hathi: 217 CTR 105 and CIT v. Suresh N. Gupta (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 386 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax Bombay Etc vs Podar Cement Pvt. Ltd. Etc on 27 May, 1997

28. Mr Syali, lastly, submitted that the amendments to Explanation 1 after section 234B(1) and the Explanation after section 234C(1) were introduced to mitigate the hardship caused and were in that sense curative and clarificatory. Reliance was placed on Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd: 226 ITR 625 (SC) and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food P Ltd: 304 ITR 308 (SC).
Supreme Court of India Cites 55 - Cited by 654 - K Venkataswami - Full Document
1