Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.82 seconds)Section 164A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 4 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 80A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981
To sustain this conclusion, we have the clear authority of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B.C. Srinivasa Setty [1981] 128 ITR 294. Dealing with Section 45 of the Act, which is a charging section, the Supreme Court was pleased to observe:
Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Bombay vs Smt. Indira Balkrishna on 14 April, 1960
In our view, in the light of the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Indira Balkrishna (supra) cited above, it is futile to contend that the status of the beneficiaries can be taken as that of an AOP. Failing that, can they be called a BOI.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Deghamwala Estates on 13 March, 1979
The answer, to our minds, would clearly be in the negative, applying the ratio of the ruling of the Madras High Court in Deghamwala Estate's case (supra).
Deccan Wine And General Stores vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 28 December, 1971
We are further fortified in our view by the ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Deccan Wine & General Stores v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 111, the ruling of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Harivadan Tribhovandas [1977] 106 ITR 494 and the ruling of the Punjab &Haryana High Court in the case of Meera & Co. v. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 564.