Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.44 seconds)
Arunachalam Muthu vs Nafan Bv on 30 November, 2012 cites

Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs C.I.T. Bombay on 25 October, 1954

After considering the judgments in Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay (supra), which is the basis of the judgment cited by the Appellant in Ascu Arch Timber Protection Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:27:04 ::: KPP -88- Company Appeal (L) No. 28 of 2012 Calcutta (supra) and State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra (supra), in paragraph 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 203 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

The Member, Board Of Revenue vs Arthur Paul Benthall on 4 October, 1955

35. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decisions in The Member, Board of Revenue vs. Arthur Paul Benthall (supra), B.R. Enterprises vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra) and the decision of this Court in Maharana Jaywantsinhji Ranmalsinhji Thakore Saheb of Sanand vs. The State of Bombay (supra), where a statute uses different expressions they mean different things. Such distinction is also clearly brought out in Section 10E of the Act as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 61 - Full Document
1