Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
Zephyr Bipmedicals,, Panaji vs Department Of Income Tax on 16 January, 2015 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv vs Sikandarkhan N on 2 May, 2013

In the meantime, similar issue was raised before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sikandarkhan N. Tunvar, 357 ITR 312 and before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. 9 ITA NO. 121&309/PNJ/2014 (A.Ys : 2009-10 & 2010-11) ITA NO. 122/PNJ/2014 (A.Y : 2009-10) Crescent Exports Syndicate (ITA No. 23 of 2013). The question before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court was framed as under :
Gujarat High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 83 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Commnr. Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S. Kelvinator Of India Ltd on 18 January, 2010

Comparison between the pre-amendment and post amendment law is permissible for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied or the object sought to be achieved by an amendment. This is precisely what was done by the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kelvinator reported in 2010(2) SCC 723. But the same comparison between the draft and the enacted law is not permissible. Nor can the draft or the bill be used for the purpose of regulating the meaning and purport of the enacted law. It is the finally enacted law which is the will of the legislature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1696 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Cit vs Opera Global Pvt Ltd on 25 August, 2014

CIT, 16 ITR (Trib) 1 (supra). Even the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court as 15 ITA NO. 121&309/PNJ/2014 (A.Ys : 2009-10 & 2010-11) ITA NO. 122/PNJ/2014 (A.Y : 2009-10) well as the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court which were prior to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court were not cited before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court as the question involved did not relate to this issue.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - S Khanna - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax -Iii vs M/S.Calcutta Haldia Shipping Services ... on 31 January, 2011

In view of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court had decided the issue on merit, we do not agree with the alternate submission of the Assessee and are of the view that the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 1871/Mum/2013 in the case of M/s. Arcadia Share & Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT will not assist the Assessee as this decision has simply took the view that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vector Shipping Services (P) Ltd. (supra) while the facts are not so. We have also gone through the decision of the Bangalore Bench in DCIT vs. Ananda Marakala dt. 13.9.2013 (150 ITD 323). We noted that in this decision the Tribunal took the view that the different High Courts have taken divergent views on the impugned issue and therefore they have taken a view in favour of the Assessee.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 31 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992

As observed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC) (page 320) : "the judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the question which were before this court" and that "a decision of this court takes its 14 ITA NO. 121&309/PNJ/2014 (A.Ys : 2009-10 & 2010-11) ITA NO. 122/PNJ/2014 (A.Y : 2009-10) colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and, while applying the decision to a later case, the courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this court, to support their reasoning". What was thus expressed for analysing decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court must equally apply in analysing of the hon'ble High Court's judgment. It could thus be, by this school of thought, wholly inappropriate to proceed on the basis of the ratio of Merilyn Shipping and Transports stands approved by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court particularly when that aspect of the matter was not even in challenge before their Lordships. However, one of the demerits if we can term it as a demerit of this school of thought is that there is an inherent risk of being less than right in such a subjective decision, as in any cerebral pursuit."
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1062 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd vs Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Bd. & Anr on 17 December, 2009

We, as such, have no doubt in our mind that the Learned Tribunal realized the meaning and purport of Section 40(a)(ia) correctly when it held that in case of omission to deduct tax even the genuine and admissible expenses are to be disallowed. But they sought to remove the rigour of the law by holding that the disallowance shall be restricted to the money which is yet to be paid. What the Tribunal by majority did was to supply the casus omissus which was not permissible and could only have been done by the Supreme Court in an appropriate case. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in the case of Bhuwalka Steel Industries vs. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board reported in 2010(2) SCC 273.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 64 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1