Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)
Income Tax Officer vs Ladi Rama Rao Patra (Also Ladi Rama Rao ... on 29 April, 1992 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ganeshram Nayak on 9 September, 1980

9. The Karnataka and Orissa High Courts in the cases Charles DSouza vs. CIT and CIT vs. Ganeshram Nayak cited (supra) were not at all concerned with the position of law as brought about by the amended provisions of Expln. 2 to S. 139(8), and S. 215(6) of the Act as they were decided much earlier to coming into force of the amended provisions of S. 139(8), Expln. 2 and S. 215(6) of the Act. Since amendments of the said provisions subsequently had materially changed the definition of the term "regular assessment" in so far as the question of levy of interest under Ss. 139(8) and 217 was concerned, and the two Honble High Courts had no occasion to consider the effect of such change, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid two decisions does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Orissa High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Charles D'Souza vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 27 January, 1984

9. The Karnataka and Orissa High Courts in the cases Charles DSouza vs. CIT and CIT vs. Ganeshram Nayak cited (supra) were not at all concerned with the position of law as brought about by the amended provisions of Expln. 2 to S. 139(8), and S. 215(6) of the Act as they were decided much earlier to coming into force of the amended provisions of S. 139(8), Expln. 2 and S. 215(6) of the Act. Since amendments of the said provisions subsequently had materially changed the definition of the term "regular assessment" in so far as the question of levy of interest under Ss. 139(8) and 217 was concerned, and the two Honble High Courts had no occasion to consider the effect of such change, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid two decisions does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Karnataka High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 44 - Full Document
1