Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.34 seconds)
Suresh Nanda, New Delhi vs Assessee cites

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Tara Devi on 28 February, 2013

The following case laws were cited to emphasize that double addition is not permissible (1) CIT v. Smt. Saraswati Devi (1995) 212 ITR 0445 (Raj) (2) CIT v. Smt. Tara Devi (2007) 292 ITR 539 (Raj) (3) Lalji Haridas v. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 0387 (SC) (4) ACIT v. Precision Metal Works and ors (1985) 156 ITR 0693 (Del) (5) Smt. Dayabai v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 0248 (MP) (6) ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 0239 (SC) (7) CIT v. Smt Durgawato Singh ((1998) 234 ITR 0249 (All) (8) CIT v. Taj Oil Traders (2003) 262 ITR 0500 (Raj) (9) CIT v. Cochin Company Pvt. Ltd. (1976) 104 ITR 0655 (Ker) (10) Jaggannath Hanumanbux v. ITO (1957) 31 ITR 603 (Cal) 29 ITA 1428, 1429, & 430/Del/2012 Shri Suresh Nanda 5.15. As regards addition on the basis of documents recovered by Delhi Police on 20.02.2007 from the possession of Dr. M.V. Rao, the Ld counsel for the assessee contends that:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 8 - H Gupta - Full Document

Lalji Haridas vs Income-Tax Officer And Anr. on 25 July, 1961

The following case laws were cited to emphasize that double addition is not permissible (1) CIT v. Smt. Saraswati Devi (1995) 212 ITR 0445 (Raj) (2) CIT v. Smt. Tara Devi (2007) 292 ITR 539 (Raj) (3) Lalji Haridas v. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 0387 (SC) (4) ACIT v. Precision Metal Works and ors (1985) 156 ITR 0693 (Del) (5) Smt. Dayabai v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 0248 (MP) (6) ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 0239 (SC) (7) CIT v. Smt Durgawato Singh ((1998) 234 ITR 0249 (All) (8) CIT v. Taj Oil Traders (2003) 262 ITR 0500 (Raj) (9) CIT v. Cochin Company Pvt. Ltd. (1976) 104 ITR 0655 (Ker) (10) Jaggannath Hanumanbux v. ITO (1957) 31 ITR 603 (Cal) 29 ITA 1428, 1429, & 430/Del/2012 Shri Suresh Nanda 5.15. As regards addition on the basis of documents recovered by Delhi Police on 20.02.2007 from the possession of Dr. M.V. Rao, the Ld counsel for the assessee contends that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 112 - Full Document

Smt. Dayabai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 January, 1985

The following case laws were cited to emphasize that double addition is not permissible (1) CIT v. Smt. Saraswati Devi (1995) 212 ITR 0445 (Raj) (2) CIT v. Smt. Tara Devi (2007) 292 ITR 539 (Raj) (3) Lalji Haridas v. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 0387 (SC) (4) ACIT v. Precision Metal Works and ors (1985) 156 ITR 0693 (Del) (5) Smt. Dayabai v. CIT (1985) 154 ITR 0248 (MP) (6) ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah (1996) 218 ITR 0239 (SC) (7) CIT v. Smt Durgawato Singh ((1998) 234 ITR 0249 (All) (8) CIT v. Taj Oil Traders (2003) 262 ITR 0500 (Raj) (9) CIT v. Cochin Company Pvt. Ltd. (1976) 104 ITR 0655 (Ker) (10) Jaggannath Hanumanbux v. ITO (1957) 31 ITR 603 (Cal) 29 ITA 1428, 1429, & 430/Del/2012 Shri Suresh Nanda 5.15. As regards addition on the basis of documents recovered by Delhi Police on 20.02.2007 from the possession of Dr. M.V. Rao, the Ld counsel for the assessee contends that:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - G L Oza - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next