Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani
Decided On : Feb-04-1986
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income tax Vs. P.S. Kalani Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 16', (int) 2 => 'Section 16', (int) 3 => 'Section 16', (int) 4 => 'Section 16', (int) 5 => 'Section 16' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sohani' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1961', (int) 1 => 'the account year', (int) 2 => '1979-80', (int) 3 => 'April 1, 1975', (int) 4 => 'the accounting year' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench', (int) 1 => 'Tribunal', (int) 2 => 'Appellate', (int) 3 => 'Tribunal', (int) 4 => 'Tribunal', (int) 5 => 'Tribunal', (int) 6 => 'Tribunal' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'three', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '6,000', (int) 4 => '24,750', (int) 5 => '12,000', (int) 6 => 'three', (int) 7 => '3,500', (int) 8 => '3,500', (int) 9 => 'more than one', (int) 10 => 'three' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503305', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984', 'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984', 'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-02-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani', 'sub' => 'Direct Taxation', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503305' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income tax Vs. P.S. Kalani Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 16', (int) 2 => 'Section 16', (int) 3 => 'Section 16', (int) 4 => 'Section 16', (int) 5 => 'Section 16' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sohani' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1961', (int) 1 => 'the account year', (int) 2 => '1979-80', (int) 3 => 'April 1, 1975', (int) 4 => 'the accounting year' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench', (int) 1 => 'Tribunal', (int) 2 => 'Appellate', (int) 3 => 'Tribunal', (int) 4 => 'Tribunal', (int) 5 => 'Tribunal', (int) 6 => 'Tribunal' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'three', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '6,000', (int) 4 => '24,750', (int) 5 => '12,000', (int) 6 => 'three', (int) 7 => '3,500', (int) 8 => '3,500', (int) 9 => 'more than one', (int) 10 => 'three' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503305', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984', 'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984', 'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-02-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani', 'sub' => 'Direct Taxation', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '503305' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Commissioner of Income tax Vs. P.S. Kalani Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 16', (int) 2 => 'Section 16', (int) 3 => 'Section 16', (int) 4 => 'Section 16', (int) 5 => 'Section 16' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sohani' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1961', (int) 1 => 'the account year', (int) 2 => '1979-80', (int) 3 => 'April 1, 1975', (int) 4 => 'the accounting year' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench', (int) 1 => 'Tribunal', (int) 2 => 'Appellate', (int) 3 => 'Tribunal', (int) 4 => 'Tribunal', (int) 5 => 'Tribunal', (int) 6 => 'Tribunal' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'three', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '6,000', (int) 4 => '24,750', (int) 5 => '12,000', (int) 6 => 'three', (int) 7 => '3,500', (int) 8 => '3,500', (int) 9 => 'more than one', (int) 10 => 'three' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503305', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984', 'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984', 'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-02-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani', 'sub' => 'Direct Taxation', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '503305' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Commissioner of Income tax Vs. P.S. Kalani Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 256(1', (int) 1 => 'Section 16', (int) 2 => 'Section 16', (int) 3 => 'Section 16', (int) 4 => 'Section 16', (int) 5 => 'Section 16' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'Sohani' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'J.1' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '1961', (int) 1 => 'the account year', (int) 2 => '1979-80', (int) 3 => 'April 1, 1975', (int) 4 => 'the accounting year' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench', (int) 1 => 'Tribunal', (int) 2 => 'Appellate', (int) 3 => 'Tribunal', (int) 4 => 'Tribunal', (int) 5 => 'Tribunal', (int) 6 => 'Tribunal' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'three', (int) 1 => 'three', (int) 2 => 'two', (int) 3 => '6,000', (int) 4 => '24,750', (int) 5 => '12,000', (int) 6 => 'three', (int) 7 => '3,500', (int) 8 => '3,500', (int) 9 => 'more than one', (int) 10 => 'three' ), 'ORDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => 'third' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '503305', 'acts' => '<a href="/act/51330/income-tax-act-1961-complete-act">Income Tax Act, 1961</a> - Sections 16; Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984', 'appealno' => 'M.C.C. No. 181 of 1984', 'appellant' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax', 'authreffered' => '', 'casename' => 'Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. P.S. Kalani', 'casenote' => ' - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1890.Section 306 :[Dalveer Bhandari & Harjit Singh Bedi,JJ] Abetment of suicide Deceased, a married woman, committed suicide - Allegation of abetment of suicide against appellant husband and in-laws - Ocular evidence was sketchy - Dying declaration recorded by Tahsildar completely exonerated all accused in-laws of any misconduct dispelling any suspicion as to their involvement - Letter of threat allegedly written by appellant to father of victim was concocted piece of evidence Held, Though presumption against appellant can be raised, it cannot be said that onus shifts exclusively and heavily on him to prove his innocence. Conviction of appellant is liable to be set aside. ', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => '', 'citingcases' => '', 'counselplain' => 'R.C. Mukati, Adv.', 'counseldef' => 'S.C. Bagadia, Adv.', 'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '1986-02-04', 'deposition' => '', 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'G.G. Sohani and ;R.K. Varma, JJ.', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sohani, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. By this reference under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, has referred the following question of law to this court for its opinion :</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 on salary received from the three employers during the account year although the deductions so allowed may thus exceed Rs. 3,500?'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The material facts giving rise to this reference, briefly, are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The assessment year in question is 1979-80. The assessee was during the relevant accounting year in the employment of three persons. From two employers, the assessee received salary of Rs. 6,000 and Rs. 24,750 respectively while from the third employer, the assessee received only perquisite consisting of furnished accommodation, the value of which was assessed at Rs. 12,000. The assessee claimed separate standard deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers. The Income-tax Officer however, granted standard deduction limited to the extent of Rs. 3,500 only. An appeal preferred by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was dismissed but on further appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act and that the total amount thus admissible might exceed Rs. 3,500. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue sought a reference and it is at the instance of the Revenue that the aforesaid question of law has been referred to this court for its opinion.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the matter is now concluded by the amendment to Section 16 of the Act inserting the following Explanation after the proviso to Clause (i):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where, in the case of an assessee, salary is due from, or paid or allowed by, more than one employer, the deduction under this clause shall be computed with reference to the aggregate salary due, paid or allowed to the assessee and shall in no case exceed the amount specified under this clause.'</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As this amendment has been brought into force retrospectively with effect from April 1, 1975, it was not disputed that it was applicable in the instant case. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to separate deductions under Section 16 of the Act on the amounts of salary received by him from the three employers during the accounting year in question. Our answer to the question referred to this court is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Reference answered accordingly.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => '', 'pubs' => '(1986)53CTR(MP)300; [1986]159ITR681(MP)', 'ratiodecidendi' => '', 'respondent' => 'P.S. Kalani', 'sub' => 'Direct Taxation', 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '503305' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 256(1, Section 16, Section 16, Section 16, Section 16, Section 16
GPE: Sohani
NORP: J.1
DATE: 1961, the account year, 1979-80, April 1, 1975, the accounting year
ORG: Appellate Tribunal, Indore Bench, Tribunal, Appellate, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal
CARDINAL: three, three, two, 6,000, 24,750, 12,000, three, 3,500, 3,500, more than one, three
ORDINAL: third