Jose v. Antony, 2005 (1) KLT 252, Mohd. Ayub

Trilok Chand Sain S/O Shri Ram Swaroop Sain vs. Income Tax Officer

Bench: SABINA,CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

The Commissioner of Income Tax [Central] vs. Akula Nageswara Rao

Bench: SANJAY KUMAR,GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

Official Liquidator of M/S Kirloskar Investments vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR

…Vs. Tulsa Y. Sawkar and others37, it was observed as below: "It is true that the law looks with disfavor upon properties being partitioned partially. The principle that 35 (1982) 1 SCC 447 36 (1983) 2 SCC 155 37 2022 SCC OnLine SC 240 RFA No.1433/2014 C/W RFA NO.1525/2014, RFA CROB NO.1/2015 81 there cannot be a partial partition is not an absolute one. It admits of exceptions. In Mayne's 'Treatise on Hindu Law & Usage' 17th Edition, Paragraph 487, reads as follows: "487. Partition suit should embrace all property - Every suit for…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agricultural Market Commitee

Bench: GODA RAGHURAM,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Collector of Central Excise, Indore vs. M/S. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Chhindwara

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

…ce while remanding the case to the lower authorities because this Court is now hearing an appeal against the order of the Tribunal in which the earlier order has merged. This Court in the case of Jasraj Inder Singh vs. Hemraj Multanchand {(1977) 2 SCC 155} has held :- In an appeal against the High Courts finding the Supreme Court is not bound by what the High Court might have held in its remand order. It is true that a subordinate court is bound by the direction of the High Court. It is equally true that the same High Court, hearing the matter on a second occasion or any other court of c…