T 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) Raja Bahadur v. CIT

Kusum Mittal, Haryana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Gurgaon

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

…as to be taken into consideration while deciding an appeal as the appeal is in continuation of the original proceedings [See: CIT v. Dewan Bahadur Ram Gopal Mills Ltd. [1961] 41 ITR 280 (SC), State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Syed Mohammad Saadat Ali Khan [1961] 41 ITR 737 (SC) and CIT V. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. [1991] 187 ITR 181 (SC). CONCLUSIONS In the present case we find that the warrant of authorisation under Section 132 of the Act has been issued on 10th November, 2006 in the joint name of three persons. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that in view of the provisions of Section 292CC, as…

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

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…968 68 ITR 227 (SC). Kalaratic Devi Harlalka vs CIT (1967 66 ITR 680 SC), Ram PyafiDevi Sarogi vs CIT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) 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'b…

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

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…968 68 ITR 227 (SC). Kalaratic Devi Harlalka vs CIT (1967 66 ITR 680 SC), Ram PyafiDevi Sarogi vs CIT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) 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'b…

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

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…968 68 ITR 227 (SC). Kalaratic Devi Harlalka vs CIT (1967 66 ITR 680 SC), Ram PyafiDevi Sarogi vs CIT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) 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'b…

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

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

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…968 68 ITR 227 (SC). Kalaratic Devi Harlalka vs CIT (1967 66 ITR 680 SC), Ram PyafiDevi Sarogi vs CIT 1968 67 ITR 84(SC), Sankappa (s) v ITO 1968 68 ITR 760 (SC) 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'b…