Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Onkarlal Kachoria Vs. Ito
Decided On : Apr-24-2002
Court : Rajasthan
LAW: section 139(4, section 142(l)(i, section 142(l)(i, section 142(1)(ii, the Income Tax Act, Income Tax Act, section 144/115, section 144, section 145, section 144(l)(b, the Income Tax Act, officer.10.1 Section 144, section 142(l)(i, section 142(l)(i, section 142(l)(i, section 142(l)(i
PERSON: Khatri, Udaipur, Udaipur, Authorised Representative, Authorised Representative
ORG: Commissioner (Appeals, Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, Marsh v. Marsh, AC 217, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals, the Commissioner (Appeals
DATE: year 1994-95, year 1994-95.5, year 1994-95, 139(1, year, year 1994-95, the same day, 1945, the assessment year, year 1994-95, two years
CARDINAL: 17, 31-8-1994, 31-3-1996, 9-3-1995, 17, 31-3-1997, 31-8-1994, 31-3-1996, 31-3-1995, 21-3-1995.4, 31, 18, 17, 40,920, 26, 17, 139(4, 9-3-1995, 31, 17, 25, 47,920, 4,100, 17, 17, 18, 18, 25, 1, 1, 2, 1, 6, 6, 7, 8, 31, 17, 31, 21-3-1995, 31, 17, 17, 31-3-1997, 18
PRODUCT: Ward-1
TIME: 9-3-1995, 9-3-1996
ORDINAL: 14th, first, Secondly