Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.28 seconds)The Companies Act, 1956
Finance Act, 1999
Section 115JA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
The Registration Act, 1908
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Kerala vs Malayalam Plantation Ltd on 10 April, 1964
CIT v. Delta Plantation Ltd. 71 Taxman 329 (Cal)
CIT v. Rameshwar Prosad Kejriwal & Sons (P) Ltd., 76 Taxman 124 (Cal)
CIT v. Champaran Sugar Co. Ltd. 200 ITR 258 (All.)
Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kochi on 2 May, 2002
Respectfully following the ratio laid down therein, as well as applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Apollo Tyres (supra), as the adjustment in question admittedly does not fall within Clauses (a) to (f) of Explanation to Sub-section (2) of Section 115JB, the adjustment is cancelled. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee in this regard are allowed.
Keshavlal Jethalal Shah vs Mohanlal Bhagwandas & Anr on 2 April, 1968
In Keshavlal Jethalal Shah v. Mohanlal Bhagwandas this Court, while interpreting Section 29(2) of the amending Act, held thus: (AIR p. 1339, para 8)
An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. Section 29(2) before it was enacted was precise in its implication as well as in its expression; the meaning of the words used was not in doubt, and there was no omission in its phraseology which was required to be supplied by the amendment.