Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)Section 269 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 269U in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax-Ix vs G.Saroja on 18 June, 2007
Now the cases relied by Sri Shukla needs to be noted. Sri Shukla has placed reliance on the judgement of High Court of Madras reported in (2008) 301 ITR 124 (Madras) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. G. SAROJA, the said case was a case where the High Court considered the provisions of Section 2(47)(v). The Madras High Court held following in paragraph 5 which is quoted below : -
Nathulal vs Phoolchand on 16 October, 1969
In the case of Nathulal Vs. Phoolchand, AIR 1970 SC 546, the Apex Court considered the scope of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and held as follows:-
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mrs. Geetadevi Pasari on 9 June, 2006
Another judgement relied by Sri Shukla is judgement of Bombay High Court reported in (2009) 17 DTR (Bom) 280 COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GEETADEVI PASARI. The Division Bench held in the said case that relevant assessment year for the purposes of computation of capital gain will be the assessment in which purchaser was actually physically put in possession. The said case considered the question which has been framed and noted in para 2 of the judgement. Question 2(b) as framed was to the following effect :
The Commissioner Of Income Tax I vs Smt Najoo Dara Deboo on 6 January, 2010
Another judgement relied by Sri Shukla is the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 65 of 2008, The Commissioner Income Tax Vs. Smt. Najoo Dara Deboo decided on 16.9.2013. The questions which were framed in the said appeal have been reproduced in the judgement which were following question :-
Honda Siel Power Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi on 26 November, 2007
Sri Shukla has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court reported in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. In the said case an application for rectification was filed before the tribunal on the ground that a judgement of the coordinate bench of the tribunal relied by the assessee escaped the attention of the tribunal. The tribunal allowed the rectification application holding that it was a mistake committed by the tribunal. The order on appeal filed by the department was set aside by the High Court. The assessee approached the Supreme Court. The Axpex Court laid down following in paragraph 12 which is to the following effect :