Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sri Mohan Wahi vs Commissioner, Income-Tax, Varanasi & ... on 30 March, 2001
In support of his submissions he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Piara Singh , in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. and Anr. , in the case of C/T v. Aswati Corporation , in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO , in the case of CWT v. Arvind Narottam , in the case of Mohan Wahi v. CIT and Ors. , and in the case of Mittal Belting & Machinery Stores v. CIT & Anr. .
Workmen Employed In Associated Rubber ... vs Associated Rubber Industry Ltd., ... on 19 August, 1985
In support of his submission that the transaction is a sham transaction, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. and Anr. , in the case of CIT v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Ors. and in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. CIT .
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. & Ors on 25 October, 1966
In support of his submission that the transaction is a sham transaction, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. and Anr. , in the case of CIT v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Ors. and in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. CIT .
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Patiala vs Piara Singh on 8 May, 1980
In support of his submissions he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Piara Singh , in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. and Anr. , in the case of C/T v. Aswati Corporation , in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO , in the case of CWT v. Arvind Narottam , in the case of Mohan Wahi v. CIT and Ors. , and in the case of Mittal Belting & Machinery Stores v. CIT & Anr. .
Hari Singh vs Kanhaiya Lal on 7 September, 1999
7. From the reading of Section 260A of the Act it is clear that this Court can interfere against the order passed by the Tribunal, if the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from errors involving substantial question of law. The scope of interference under Section 260A of the Act by this Court is similar to the power to be exercised by this Court under Section 100 of the CPC. While considering the scope of Section 100 of the CPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hari Singh v. Kanhaiya Lal of the judgment has observed as follows :
Panchugopal Barua & Ors vs Umesh Chandra Goswami & Ors on 12 February, 1997
11. This Court records in Panchugopal Barua v. Umesh Chandra Goswami :
Carborandum Universal Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 November, 1983
In support of his submission that the transaction is a sham transaction, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. v. Associated Rubber Industry Ltd. and Anr. , in the case of CIT v. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and Ors. and in the case of Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. CIT .
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka, ... vs M/S. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd., Bangalore on 20 March, 1998
In support of his submissions he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Piara Singh , in the case of CIT v. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. and Anr. , in the case of C/T v. Aswati Corporation , in the case of McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO , in the case of CWT v. Arvind Narottam , in the case of Mohan Wahi v. CIT and Ors. , and in the case of Mittal Belting & Machinery Stores v. CIT & Anr. .
1