The Commissioner of Income TAx-IV, vs. M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises (India) Limited

The Appeal is dismissed

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ab initio void having been passed disregarding the pendency of application filed under Section 21 of the Act; that the above said fact was not brought to the notice of the appellate authority when Appeal No. 1680 of 1984 was decided and that the said appellant Prabhudas had already expired. It further observed that as regards computation of excess

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. Shri Raaj Kumar Jain

Section 27 begins with a proviso and states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered, in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved, 49 whether it amounts to a confession

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

35 / 79 CRA-322-08gr distance of the line of WC and toilet”. He denied that to the rear side of the suit premises, previously, there was an otla and it was removed and put on it a rolling shutter, enclosed by defendants no.1 and 2. 46. As far as trial Court is concerned, the learned trial Judge

SYED ABBAS MIAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-I,KURNOOL

35 1159.2. Only such taxes as are discriminatory in nature are prohibited by Article 304(a). It follows that levy of a non- discriminatory tax would not constitute an infraction of Article 301. 1159.3. Clauses (a) and (b) of Article 304 have to be read disjunctively. 1159.4. A levy that violates Article 304(a) cannot be saved even

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs. M/s Vaishnavi Educational Society

In the result, this Cross Objection is allowed and the suit is

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

ab initio void; for the reason that the same are not supported by consideration and good faith. The said documents are nothing but the outcome of the fraud and criminal conspiracy committed by the defendants on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have never received the sale consideration from the defendants. Likewise, the first defendant has also not received any sale consideration