41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai v. UOI

101 ITR 491High Court#18578 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 348,631 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Judgments citing 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai v. UOI

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3932/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…C) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and necessarily, had to be taken cognizance of by me while passing…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3931/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…C) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and necessarily, had to be taken cognizance of by me while passing…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3930/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…C) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and necessarily, had to be taken cognizance of by me while passing…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vishnu Goel, Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3929/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shivir Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.S.Rana, CIT DR
Section 133Section 133ASection 271

…C) Raja Bahadur Vs CIT 1954 26 ITR 563-570, 571 (Pat). State Raja Syed Mohammed Saddat Ali Khan 1961 41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs UOI - 1975 98 ITR 209 -SC I. .vangadhar Chemical Works Ltd Vs CIT 1975 101 ITR 491 (Bom.), Shah JM Vs Bhatia JM AAc 1979, 94 ITR 519 (Bom), Anglo French Textiles Ltd v ITO 1976 103 ITR 2-2 'Rad.), it stands to reason that the development arising in the interval i.e. Hon'ble ITAT passing the order in the meanwhile in the appellant's main case i.e. SKG’s logically and necessarily, had to be taken cognizance of by me while passing…

41 ITR 737 (SC), CIT Vs Straw Products Ltd 1966 60 ITR 156(SC), Madeva Upendra Sinai v. UOI (101 ITR 491) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax