Skip to content

Semantic Analysis by spaCy

Second Income-tax Officer and ors. Vs. M.C.T. Trust and ors.

Decided On : Mar-14-1975

Court : Chennai

Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]

LAW: Section 4(3)(i, Section 11, Section 11(2, Section 2(2, the Public Debt Act, Section 11(2, Section 11, Section 11, Rule 17, Rule 17, Section 2, Rule 17, Section 11(2, Section 295, Section 2, Section 11, Section 11(2, Section 11(2, Section 2(2, the Public Debt Act, Section 2(2, Section 2(1A, Section 11, Section 11(2)(a, Section 8, Section 8(b, Section 8(4, Section 8(1, Section 8(1, Section 13, Section 13(3, Section 8(1, Section 8(4, Section 8(4, Section 11(2)(b, Section 295 of the Act, Section 295 of the Act, Section 295, Section 295(1, Section 295(1, Section 295(1, the Finance Act, Section 295(1, the Defence Regulations, Section 295(1, Constitution, Article 145(1)(b, Section 13(3, Rule 39, Section 15(b, the Mysore Act, Section 5(4, Section 15, Section 5(4, Section 200, Section 11, Section 200, Section 11, Section 11, Section 11, Section 296, Section 40 of the Act (Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation, Section 296, Section 256 of the Act

ORG: Sethuraman, 4th Income-tax Officer, City Circle VI, the Central Government, the Madras Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., the Government of Madras, the Commissioner of Income-tax, the Government of India, Government, Government, Government, Appellate, M.C.T. Trust, Bedford House, Vepery, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the Central Government, the State Government, the State Government, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Government, Government, Government, the Supreme Court, Sales Tax Officer, the Central Sales Tax Act, Government, State, the Central Government, the State Government, the State Government, the Central Government, the Central Sales Tax, the 'C' Form, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Board, the Central Government, Commissioners of Customs, Excise v. Cure & Deeley Ltd., Commissioners, Commissioners, Crown, the Court of Appeal, Ayr Collieries Ltd., The Court of Appeal, Parliament, Parliament, Parliament, Parliament, Solar Works v. Employees', State Insurance Corporation, State Insurance Court Rules, the Insurance Court, State, the Supreme Court, Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd., Employees' State Insurance Corporation, The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, Bench, Haji J.A., the Central Sales Tax Act, the Central Sales Tax, Solar Works v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, the Central Sales Tax Act, State of Mysore v. Mallick Hashim & Co., the Mysore Sales Tax Rules, the Central Sales Tax Act, the Central Sales Tax Act and Section 5(4, the Mysore SalesTax Act, The Mysore High Court, Thirumurthi, the Mysore High Court, the Supreme Court, The High Court, the Mysore Sales Tax Act, the Mysore Sales Tax Act, Emphasis, Lordships, the Central Government, Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd., Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Parliament, the Central Government, each House of Parliament, House, The Supreme Court, Union of India, House of Parliament, the Central Government, House of Parliament, the Central Government, Tribunal

NORP: J.1, Indian, Indian, Greens, Rules

CARDINAL: four, 2., 1972]86ITR282(Mad, four, 167, 3., two, 10,000, 3,711, 4., One, 10,000, 5., 1, 2, 6, 17, 10, 10, 8, 9, 10, 2,79,120, 10, three, 11, 2, 4, 10, two, 12, 10, 2, 2, 4, 17, 2, 1, 2, 14, twenty-five, ten thousand, 2, 15, 16, 10, 17, 3, 6, 372, 2, 19, 1, 2, 20, 2, 10, 1961, 3, 12, 820, 12, three, 1, 2, 3, one, 23, four, 24, 547, One, four, four, 26, 1963)IILLJ597Mad, 17, 228, 28, 871, 872, 30, 18, 1974)3SCC251, 3, 1968, 364, 2, 3, 139, 249, 253, 256, 2, 10, 36, 866, 37, 39, One, two, 40, 2, 4, 10, 2, 167, 169, 170, 250

PERSON: Ramaprasada Rao J., Chettiar Family Trust, Madras, Lady Muthiah, Chettiar, Nos, Madras, Ponkunnam v.K. I. Abraham, matters--, Lloyd-George, Madras, Mettupalayam, Madras, Chettiar

GPE: W.A., India, M.I.I.C., M.I.I.C., M.I.I.C., M.I.I.C., M.I.I.C., M.I.I.C., M.I.I.C., Septemberand, Clause, Clause, India, India, M.I.I.C., M.I.I.C., M.I.I.C., M.I.I.C., India, the United Kingdom, Barrel, Barrel, Hukam Chand v.

DATE: 1972, June 4, 1951, 4922, 1964-65, year, the calendar year 1963, that year, 4,94,575, 1922, a later date, 1961, 1944, August 1, 1963, a period of, 10 years, January 1, 1961, the year 1970, March 14, 1963, 5222, August 29, 1961, the 14th March, 1963, March 28, 1963, May 4, 1963, August 28, 1964, November, 1964, August 28, 1968, 1,22,716, October, 1964, 4 months, the accounting year, that year, September 28, 1968, October 9, 1968, September 28, 1968, 1st March, 1963, the previous year, year 1962-63, 9 previous years, the previous year ending 1971-72, the expiry of, four months, previous year, 1944, 1961, '13, '11, ten years, 1944, 1944, 10 years, 1944, previous year, the period of, 4 months, ten years, four months, previous year, 1967]3SCR518, 1957, the preceding month, '18, 1961, 1940, 1945, seven days, '22, 1940, 1943, '25, 1948, 1951, 12 months, '27, 12 months, 1966, '31, 32, 1957, 1957, 1956, 1957, '34, four month, 35, 10 years, thirty days, Section 11(2)(a, 1972, 1972

PERCENT: 25%, 25%, 25%, 51%, 25%, 100%, 75%, 1%, 7%

FAC: the Gazette of India

ORDINAL: first

WORK_OF_ART: 2 All ER 546

LOC: Madras, Madras

View Full Judgment


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //