Float Glass India Ltd. Vs. Joint Cit - Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Decided on: May-29-2006

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

LAW: Section 32, Section 10(5, the Income Tax Act.5, the Income Tax Act, Section 43(l, Section 143(1)(a, Section 143(l)(a

CARDINAL: 1, 18-12-1998, 24, 31-3-1995, 10, 140, 17-11-1982, 12, 189, No.2, 46,05,942, 7, 8, three, 3, 24-3-1995, 4, 13, 6,45,90,327, 33 to 41

GPE: Mumbai, Bombay, assessee

ORDINAL: first, second

DATE: the year, 27-11-1994, 1983, 1978, 5,09,734, 15,439.6, the accounting year, less than six months, March, 1995, l-4-1999, more than six months, the entire year, the month of March, 1995, the whole year, the later half of the year, the month of March

ORG: Panvel, the Supreme Court, Challapari Sugars Ltd., CIT, the Indian Income Tax Act,1922, the' Supreme Court, ITR, ITA No, Tribunal, the Bombay High Court, Challapalli Sugars Ltd., Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals &, Fertilizers Ltd., CIT v. Bokaro Steel Ltd., The Supreme Court, Bokaro Steel Ltd., the Commissioner (Appeals, CIT Departmental, Bralco Metal Industries, finding.14

PRODUCT: Para 9.3

PERSON: Fazal Ali, Vehkataramaiah

TIME: 18,98,300, 9-12-1998

MONEY: 50 per cent, only 50 per cent, 12.5 per cent, 25 per cent