THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2020 was pleased to pass an order on the said I.A., relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: - 11 - “The following additional substantial question of law shall also be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. “H. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notices issued

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2020 was pleased to pass an order on the said I.A., relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: - 11 - “The following additional substantial question of law shall also be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. “H. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notices issued

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2020 was pleased to pass an order on the said I.A., relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: - 11 - “The following additional substantial question of law shall also be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. “H. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notices issued

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HIMALAYA DRUG COMPANY

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

4. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2020 was pleased to pass an order on the said I.A., relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: - 11 - “The following additional substantial question of law shall also be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. “H. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notices issued

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S VSL MINING COMPANY PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed as being

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

4. Vide order dated 31.12.2009, the AO also dealt with the issues pertaining to the alleged unaccounted transactions of the assessee with the said MKJ. It referred to various documents that were recovered in the search conducted as well as the statements of MKJ. After considering the same, the AO recorded a finding that MKJ carried out transactions on behalf

HEWLETT PACKARD FINANCIAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Bench: S.SUJATHA,JAYANT PATEL

127 (SC) – constitution bench; 7. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax & Service Tax vs. Kotak Co. [1973] 32 STC 6 (SC) – constitution bench; 21 8. Binani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [1975] 33 STC 254 (SC) – constitution bench; 9. Mohammed Serajuddin vs. State of Orissa [1975] 35 STC 136 (SC) – constitution bench; 10. Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income