Ramakrishnan vs. CIT, (ii) (1986) 160 ITR 534 (Mad.), C.P. Chitrarasu v. CIT (iii)

148 ITR 333High Court1984#22620 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2015.

Judgments citing Ramakrishnan vs. CIT, (ii) (1986) 160 ITR 534 (Mad.), C.P. Chitrarasu v. CIT (iii)

Aroon Purie vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA-232/2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…ee relied upon the following judgments in support of his case: (i) (1978) 114 ITR 253 (Mad.), S. A. Ramakrishnan vs. CIT, (ii) (1986) 160 ITR 534 (Mad.), C.P. Chitrarasu vs. CIT (iii) (1988) 171 ITR 447 (Mad.), CIT vs. M. Balamuralikrishna (iv) (1984) 148 ITR 333 (Mad.), CIT vs. Dr.B.M. Sundaravadanan 4. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the award given to the assessee was not covered by the exemption provisions of Section 10(17A) of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the case. He accordingly added the amount of Rs.1 lakh to the income…

Aroon Purie vs. Commr.of Income Tax

ITA - 232 / 2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…ee relied upon the following judgments in support of his case: (i) (1978) 114 ITR 253 (Mad.), S. A. Ramakrishnan vs. CIT, (ii) (1986) 160 ITR 534 (Mad.), C.P. Chitrarasu vs. CIT (iii) (1988) 171 ITR 447 (Mad.), CIT vs. M. Balamuralikrishna (iv) (1984) 148 ITR 333 (Mad.), CIT vs. Dr.B.M. Sundaravadanan 4. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the award given to the assessee was not covered by the exemption provisions of Section 10(17A) of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the case. He accordingly added the amount of Rs.1 lakh to the income…

Aroon Purie vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/232/2002HC Delhi27 Mar 2015
Section 10Section 260A

…ee relied upon the following judgments in support of his case: (i) (1978) 114 ITR 253 (Mad.), S. A. Ramakrishnan vs. CIT, (ii) (1986) 160 ITR 534 (Mad.), C.P. Chitrarasu vs. CIT (iii) (1988) 171 ITR 447 (Mad.), CIT vs. M. Balamuralikrishna (iv) (1984) 148 ITR 333 (Mad.), CIT vs. Dr.B.M. Sundaravadanan 4. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the award given to the assessee was not covered by the exemption provisions of Section 10(17A) of the Act and the judgments relied upon by the assessee were not applicable to the facts of the case. He accordingly added the amount of Rs.1 lakh to the income…

Ramakrishnan vs. CIT, (ii) (1986) 160 ITR 534 (Mad.), C.P. Chitrarasu v. CIT (iii) (148 ITR 333) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax