Shanti Bhushan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Decided On : May-31-2011

Court : Delhi

LAW: the Income Tax Act, Section 31, Section 37, the IT Act, Section 31, the I.T. Act, Section 31, Section 37, the I.T. Act, Section 144-A of the I.T. Act, Section 43(3, the I.T. Act, Section 31, the I.T. Act, Section 31, Section 37, the IT Act, Section 31, Section 37(1, the IT Act, the IT Act, Section 37(1, the IT Act, Section 31, Section 31, Section 31, the I.T. Act, ITR 21, Section 31, the IT Act, Section 31, the I.T. Act, Section 31, the IT Act, Section 37, the IT Act, Section 31, the IT Act, Section 31, Section 37(1, the IT Act, Section 31, Section 37, the I.T. Act, section 10(2)(xv, the Income Tax Act, the I.T. Act, section 38, the Income Tax Act, section 37, the I.T. Act, the Employers Liability Act, the Employers Liability Act, the Employers Liability Act, section 1, the Employers Liability Act, the Employers Liability Act, the Income Tax Act, the Employers Liability Act, section 32, the IT Act, section 43(3, the IT Act, section 43(3, the IT Act, section 43(3, the IT Act, section 32, the IT Act, section 32, Section 43(3, the I.T. Act, Section 10(5, Section 43(3, section 31, the IT Act, section 37, the IT Act, section 31, the IT Act, the IT Act, section 31, the IT Act, the IT Act, section 37, the IT Act, section 37, the IT Act, section 37(1, the IT Act, section 37, the IT Act

CARDINAL: 1, 2, 3., one, two, 3.1, 4, 5., 5.1, 6., 6.1, 6.2, 3.55, 5.1, 10.8, 12.15, 20, 7.1, 7.2, 7.4, three, 7.5, two, 7.6, 7.7, 106, two, 1945)13, 39, 357, 71, 587, 7.9, 8, 9, 10, 37, 96, 672, 10.1, 10.2, 11, 19.04.2011, 11.1, 3.55, 106.87, 18, 460, 131, 223, 227, 106, 758, 766/767, 652, 658, 96, 672, 166, 66, 95/97, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 12, 13, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, One, 14, half, 14.2, two, 14.3, 15, 15.2, 1, 2, 16, two, 16.2, 16.3 One, one, 16.4, 2/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 16.5, 1/3rd, 16.6, 17, 17.1, two, 17.2, 18, 19, 19.1, 166, 66, 157, one, 20.1, two, two, 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 39, 357, 82, one, 40, 14, one, 21.1, two, 21.2, 22, three, 22.1, 22.2, 22.3, 1/3rd, 23, 24

DATE: 1961, 19.05.1994, 1961, the year, 1983-84, 25.06.1983, 04.09.1985, December, 1978, the assessment year 1982-83, the assessment years i.e., 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, the assessment year 1986-87, 1887, 1974, 10th May, 2011, year 1982-83, 1992-93, year 1992-93, 12.03.1986, 1950, 467/468, 1981, 1977, 1974, 1987, a period of, three years, year ending on 31st March, 1949, the assessment year, the accounting year, 1957, 1880, four years, one particular year, one unfortunate day, year, year, 1987, 1986, 86. 20, the assessment year, 1960, three years, 1971, 1962, 21, the years, year 1982-1983, year 1992-1993, the previous year, the earlier years

EVENT: I.T. Act, the 1922 Act

ORG: the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Tribunal, IAC, IAC, Suffice, Assessing, the Bombay High Court, Mehboob Production Pvt, Income-Tax, Assessing, Assessing, Taxes, Maden and, Iyerland Ltd., Assessing, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Gujarat High Court, CIT v., Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Court of Appeal, Taxes, Mehboob Productions, Mehboob Productions, Tribunal, Coronary, ITR, TATA Sons Ltd., CIT, ITR, Waterfall Estates Ltd., CIT, ITR, Bombay, Productions Pvt. Ltd., CIT, Gujrat, CIT, Elecon Engineering, ITR, Scientific Engineering House Pvt. Ltd., CIT, Mehboob Productions, Tribunal, Tribunal, Royal Calcutta Turf Club, The Royal Calcutta Turf Club, Club, Club, the Income Tax Officer, ITO, Tribunal, ITO, the High Court, the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court, Tata Sons, Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, The High Court, Waterfall Estates Ltd., the Central Income Tax Act, Tribunal, ITO, AAC, ITO, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, ITO, Tribunal, the High Court, Tribunal, inter alia, the Supreme Court, Royal Calcutta Turf Club, the Bombay High Court, Mehboob Productions, Rs.33,667/-, the Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Board of Directors, ITO, ITO, AAC, ITO, Tribunal, Tribunal, the High Court, The High Court, Tribunal, Tribunal, the Board of Directors, the High Court, Tribunal, the Queens Bench Division, the First Court, The Appeal Court, the Appeal Court, the Gujarat High Court, Elecon Engineering Company Ltd., the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., ITR, Scientific Engineering House P Ltd., CIT, the Supreme Court, Scientific Engineering, ITO, ITO, AAC, ITO, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, Tribunal, ITO, the High Court, The High Court, the High Court, the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, Maden &amp, Ireland Ltd., C.I.T., Court, New World Dictionary, the Gujarat High Court, Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court, Scientific Engineering, the Bombay High Court, Mehboob Productions, Tribunal, the Bombay High Court

GPE: Houston, USA, France, Hinton, France, assessee, Kolkata, USA, USA, USA, India, Hollywood, USA, USA, India, USA, USA, USA, USA, France, London, India, Hinton, Yarmouth, France, Huston, USA, USA, USA

ORDINAL: Firstly, Secondly, first, first, second, third, fourth, first, second, fifth, first, third, firstly, second, firstly, secondly, first

WORK_OF_ART: Mehboob Production, the Assessing Officers

PERSON: Norman v. Golder, Yarmouth, Norman v. Golder, Madras, Rashmi Chopra, Chopra, Khan, Mehboob Khan, Mehboob Khan, Mehboob Khan, Mehboob Khan, Mehboob Khan, Mehboob Khan, Mehboob Khan, Mehboob Khan, Mehboob Khan, Yarmouth, Taj Mahal, Lindley L.J., Jarrold, John Good, Webster, Lakhs, Lakhs

PRODUCT: Calcutta

NORP: Indian, Hungarian, Hungarian, Hungarian, Hungarian, Hungarian

PERCENT: 40%

MONEY: 256(1

FAC: Mother India