Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.88 seconds)Section 40 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 30 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Karnataka vs International Instruments (P) Ltd. on 14 September, 1983
We agree with view taken by the High Courts of Calcutta
(Molins [India] Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax, West
Bengal-III [144 I.T.R.317]) and Brooke Bond [India] Limited
V. Commissioner of Income Tax [193 I.T.R.390), Bombay
(Lubrizol [India] Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [187
I.T.R. 25] followed in several other decisions of that
Court), Karnataka (Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka V.
International Instruments Private Limited [144 I.T.R.936),
Madras (Sundaram Industries Limited V. Commissioner of
Income Tax [159 I.T.R.646]), Andhra Pradesh (Vazir Sultan
Tobacco Company Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [169
I.T.R.35]), Rajasthan (Associated Stone Industries Company
Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [170 I.T.R.653]),
Gujarat (S.L.M.Maniklal Industries Limited V. Commissioner
of Income Tax [172 I.T.R.176] followed in several cases
thereafter), Allahabad (Himalyan Drug Company Private
Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [218 I.T.R.346]) and
Punjab Haryana High Court (Hiqhway Cycle Industries Limited
V. Commissioner of Income Tax [178 I.T.R.601])
Accordingly, the appeals preferred by the assessees are
dismissed with costs assessed at Rupees two thousand in each
appeal, while the two appeals preferred by the Revenue are
allowed with costs of Rupees two thousand in each appeal.
Sundaram Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 January, 1986
We agree with view taken by the High Courts of Calcutta
(Molins [India] Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax, West
Bengal-III [144 I.T.R.317]) and Brooke Bond [India] Limited
V. Commissioner of Income Tax [193 I.T.R.390), Bombay
(Lubrizol [India] Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [187
I.T.R. 25] followed in several other decisions of that
Court), Karnataka (Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka V.
International Instruments Private Limited [144 I.T.R.936),
Madras (Sundaram Industries Limited V. Commissioner of
Income Tax [159 I.T.R.646]), Andhra Pradesh (Vazir Sultan
Tobacco Company Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [169
I.T.R.35]), Rajasthan (Associated Stone Industries Company
Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [170 I.T.R.653]),
Gujarat (S.L.M.Maniklal Industries Limited V. Commissioner
of Income Tax [172 I.T.R.176] followed in several cases
thereafter), Allahabad (Himalyan Drug Company Private
Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [218 I.T.R.346]) and
Punjab Haryana High Court (Hiqhway Cycle Industries Limited
V. Commissioner of Income Tax [178 I.T.R.601])
Accordingly, the appeals preferred by the assessees are
dismissed with costs assessed at Rupees two thousand in each
appeal, while the two appeals preferred by the Revenue are
allowed with costs of Rupees two thousand in each appeal.
Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Commlssioner Of Income-Tax Andhra ... on 25 September, 1981
We agree with view taken by the High Courts of Calcutta
(Molins [India] Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax, West
Bengal-III [144 I.T.R.317]) and Brooke Bond [India] Limited
V. Commissioner of Income Tax [193 I.T.R.390), Bombay
(Lubrizol [India] Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [187
I.T.R. 25] followed in several other decisions of that
Court), Karnataka (Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka V.
International Instruments Private Limited [144 I.T.R.936),
Madras (Sundaram Industries Limited V. Commissioner of
Income Tax [159 I.T.R.646]), Andhra Pradesh (Vazir Sultan
Tobacco Company Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [169
I.T.R.35]), Rajasthan (Associated Stone Industries Company
Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [170 I.T.R.653]),
Gujarat (S.L.M.Maniklal Industries Limited V. Commissioner
of Income Tax [172 I.T.R.176] followed in several cases
thereafter), Allahabad (Himalyan Drug Company Private
Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [218 I.T.R.346]) and
Punjab Haryana High Court (Hiqhway Cycle Industries Limited
V. Commissioner of Income Tax [178 I.T.R.601])
Accordingly, the appeals preferred by the assessees are
dismissed with costs assessed at Rupees two thousand in each
appeal, while the two appeals preferred by the Revenue are
allowed with costs of Rupees two thousand in each appeal.
Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New Delhi on 25 August, 1971
We agree with view taken by the High Courts of Calcutta
(Molins [India] Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax, West
Bengal-III [144 I.T.R.317]) and Brooke Bond [India] Limited
V. Commissioner of Income Tax [193 I.T.R.390), Bombay
(Lubrizol [India] Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [187
I.T.R. 25] followed in several other decisions of that
Court), Karnataka (Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka V.
International Instruments Private Limited [144 I.T.R.936),
Madras (Sundaram Industries Limited V. Commissioner of
Income Tax [159 I.T.R.646]), Andhra Pradesh (Vazir Sultan
Tobacco Company Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [169
I.T.R.35]), Rajasthan (Associated Stone Industries Company
Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [170 I.T.R.653]),
Gujarat (S.L.M.Maniklal Industries Limited V. Commissioner
of Income Tax [172 I.T.R.176] followed in several cases
thereafter), Allahabad (Himalyan Drug Company Private
Limited V. Commissioner of Income Tax [218 I.T.R.346]) and
Punjab Haryana High Court (Hiqhway Cycle Industries Limited
V. Commissioner of Income Tax [178 I.T.R.601])
Accordingly, the appeals preferred by the assessees are
dismissed with costs assessed at Rupees two thousand in each
appeal, while the two appeals preferred by the Revenue are
allowed with costs of Rupees two thousand in each appeal.