Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Section 2 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax Gujarat-Ii, ... vs R.M. Amin on 26 November, 1976
In fact, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the aforesaid decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. R.M. Amin [1977] 106 ITR 368 (SC), has clearly observed (Headnote):
Section 48 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 53 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 54 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 54B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 54D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Vijoy Kumar Budhia on 16 August, 1974
6. The question raised here has already been answered by this court in the case of CIT v. Vijoy Kumar Budhia, [1975] 100 ITR 380. This case also arose out of the same transaction, in which the present assessee has received the capital gains which is the subject-matter of the reference. In that case the questions referred were :