Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.66 seconds)
Mr. Amarjeet Dhall, Ludhiana vs Assessee on 30 January, 2013 cites

Addl Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs J.K. D'Costa on 27 April, 1981

The above clearly show that second aspect was also dealt and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court clearly showed its inability to follow the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Addl CIT V. Indian Pharmaceuticals (supra) and rather followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of JK D'Costa (supra) therefore the contention of the D.R. for the Revenue is not correct that the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is distinguishable because they have clearly followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of JK D'Costa (supra) while dealing with the second aspect.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 72 - S Ranganathan - Full Document

Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Indian Pharmaceuticals on 3 October, 1978

The above clearly show that second aspect was also dealt and the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court clearly showed its inability to follow the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Addl CIT V. Indian Pharmaceuticals (supra) and rather followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of JK D'Costa (supra) therefore the contention of the D.R. for the Revenue is not correct that the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court is distinguishable because they have clearly followed the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of JK D'Costa (supra) while dealing with the second aspect.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 29 - G L Oza - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Subhash Kumar Jain on 2 September, 1998

Therefore in view of the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Subhash Kumar Jain (supra) power u/s 263 cannot be used for directing the Assessing officer to initiate penalty proceedings. The matter could be examined from another angle. Both S 271A and 271AAA start with the expression "may". Sec 271A reads as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 12 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. on 17 September, 1992

He also submitted that other decisions relied on by the Counsel for the assessee are distinguishable and in this regard he particularly referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering W orks P Ltd, 198 ITR 297 (S.C) wherein it is clearly observed that only the judgment which is identical to the facts of the case, can be relied for particular proposition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 1062 - Y Dayal - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Linotype And Machinery Ltd. on 3 July, 1989

8 No doubt Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of CIT Vs. Sudarshan Prashad Aggarwal (supra) did not follow the decision of Addl CIT Vs. JK D'Costa (supra) the Court noted that this decision was followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in other cases as well as by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT V. Keshrimal Parasmal, 157 ITR 484 by Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in case of Sudarshan Prashad Singh, 173 ITR 510 by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in case of CIT Vs. Linotype and Machinery Ltd, 192 ITR 337 and by Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs. R.K. Swang, 254 ITR 158.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 Next