Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)
B. Sivanandam vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 March, 1984 cites

Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (Huf), ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kanpur on 12 January, 1982

The learned departmental representative argued that the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Govindlal Mathurbhai Oza (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and in case we do not agree with him he went on to argue it is against the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF's) case (supra) and, therefore, the ratio of the Gujarat High Court should be held to be no longer good law and it must be deemed to have been overruled by the Supreme Court. The Gujarat High Court decision is already distinguished by the AAC when it was quoted before him in his impugned orders. We fully approve the points of distinction adopted by him. Firstly, we hold that on fact there is difference between the Gujarat High Court decision and the case on hand.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 90 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Govindlal Mathurbhai Oza on 16 February, 1981

The learned departmental representative argued that the Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Govindlal Mathurbhai Oza (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts and in case we do not agree with him he went on to argue it is against the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad (HUF's) case (supra) and, therefore, the ratio of the Gujarat High Court should be held to be no longer good law and it must be deemed to have been overruled by the Supreme Court. The Gujarat High Court decision is already distinguished by the AAC when it was quoted before him in his impugned orders. We fully approve the points of distinction adopted by him. Firstly, we hold that on fact there is difference between the Gujarat High Court decision and the case on hand.
Gujarat High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1