Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)Section 3 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 46 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Sanghi Motors vs Union Of India And Others on 22 August, 1990
CWT [1986] 157 ITR 193 (Raj); Sanghi Motors v. Union of India [1991] 187 ITR 703 (Delhi) and Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1991] 189 ITR 81 (Delhi). We have already referred to various decisions which support the contention advanced on behalf of the assessed and which are directly on the point and with which we are in full agreement.
Escorts Tractors Ltd. vs Union Of India on 17 January, 1990
CWT [1986] 157 ITR 193 (Raj); Sanghi Motors v. Union of India [1991] 187 ITR 703 (Delhi) and Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1991] 189 ITR 81 (Delhi). We have already referred to various decisions which support the contention advanced on behalf of the assessed and which are directly on the point and with which we are in full agreement.
Govinddas & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Income Tax Officer & Another on 18 December, 1975
15. On the question of statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court observed in Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 (headnote) :
Section 27 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bangalore ... vs B. C. Srinivasa Setty, Etc. Etc on 19 February, 1981
21. Regarding section 7 of the Act being adjunct to the charging section, i.e., section 3, we have been referred to CIT v. B. C. Srinivas Setty . In this case, the Supreme Court has observed that the charging section and the computation provisions together constitute an integrated code. When there is a case to which the computation provisions cannot apply at all, it is evident that such as case was not entitled to fall within the charging section.