Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.56 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S Cosmo Films Limited on 18 July, 2011 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Rajasthan State Electricity Board on 1 September, 2000

19. We also note that a similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gujarat Gas Company Ltd (supra) which followed the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii vs Gujarat Gas Co Ltd - Opponent(S) on 7 March, 2011

19. We also note that a similar view has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (supra) and the Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gujarat Gas Company Ltd (supra) which followed the decision of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (supra).
Gujarat High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat vs A. Raman & Company on 18 July, 1967

"With respect, therefore, we are unable to agree with the view that Duke of Westminster‟s case: 1936 (AC-1); is dead, or that its ghost has been exorcised in England. The House of Lords does not seem to think so, and we agree, with respect. In our view, the principle in Duke of ITA No.1404/08 Page No.17 of 21 Westminster‟s case [1936 (AC-1)] is very much alive and kicking in the country of its birth. And as far as this country is concerned, the observations of Shah, J, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Raman: 1968 (67) ITR 11 (SC) are very much relevant even today."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 459 - J C Shah - Full Document

West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax on 21 June, 2005

7. Mr Vohra also referred to the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (A) Bench in the case of West Coast Paper Mills Limited v. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax: (2006) 100 TTJ 833 (Mumbai) where, in an identical case, which also partly involved the Haryana State Electricity Board, was considered and decided in favour of the assessee by allowing the assessee therein the benefit of 100% claim of depreciation. Mr Vohra pointed out that the said decision of the Mumbai Bench of the tribunal was taken in appeal before the Bombay High Court in Income-tax Appeal No.389/2008, which came up for hearing before the said High Court on 16.10.2008. The said High Court observed that the case of the revenue before the Tribunal was that the transactions of buy back of lease equipments and granting lease of that equipment to various boards were sham transactions entered into only for the purposes of claiming benefits of 100% depreciation. The High Court further observed that the tribunal had considered that aspect of the matter in the light of the material on record and had recorded a finding that it was not a sham and bogus transaction. It was also observed that one of the grounds considered for recording that finding was that when the other party was a statutory body, the question of evasion of tax does not arise and, therefore, according to the tribunal, the inference of collusion could not be drawn. The Bombay High Court, in ITA No.1404/08 Page No.8 of 21 these circumstances, took the view that no question of law arose for its consideration. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Bombay High Court, the revenue took the matter further by filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed in limine by virtue of an order dated 09.10.2009.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Y. Satyanarayan Reddy vs Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P on 28 August, 2009

Of course, Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the revenue, rightly contended, on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Satyanarayan Reddy v. The Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P.: 2009 (9) SCC 447 that the dismissal of an SLP in limine by the Supreme Court does not amount to the merger of the order of the High Court with that of the Supreme Court and does not entail a decision on the question of law by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 23 - A Alam - Full Document
1   2 Next