Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)
Lodha Properties Development P.Ltd, ... vs Assessee on 27 June, 2014 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hissaria Bros. on 21 July, 2006

However, it is a fact that the said decision of the Tribunal in the case of Hissaria Bros (supra) was subsequently upheld by the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court. Therefore, considering the principle of precedence, it is necessary for the Tribunal to follow the order of the High Court where there is no contrary judgment from the jurisdictional High Court.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 48 - G K Vyas - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Idhayam Publications Limited on 23 January, 2006

36. All these appeals relate to the penalty u/s 271D of the Act. The facts, arguments and the legal propositions are identical, in principle, in all the five appeals under consideration. Therefore, our findings given in the context of the appeal in the case of Lodha Builders P Ltd (supra) are applicable to all the other five appeals of the assessees. Accordingly, the grounds raised in these appeals under consideration are also allowed.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 72 - P P Raja - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi vs Worldwide Township Projects Ltd on 21 May, 2014

19. Further, the judgment of Honble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Noida Toll Bridge Co. Ltd [262 ITR 260] (Del) is relevant. We have also come across another judgment of the same High court in the case of CIT vs. Worldwide Township Projects Ltd vide ITA No.232/2014, where Honble Delhi High Court explained the above said provisions in the context of penalty levied u/s 271D of the Act. Para 8 of the said judgment of the High Court is relevant here and the same reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 29 - V Bakhru - Full Document
1