Advanced Search Results
Abdul Aziz Ansari Vs. the State of Bombay
Mumbai
Sep-09-1957
Sales Tax
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 - Sections 34, 48(1) and 48(2); Bombay Sales Tax (Procedure) Rules, 1954 - Rule 42; Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1946 - Sections 2(3), 12(3-A), 23, 24, 24(1), 24(2), 30(2), 31(1), 33, 49, 49(2), 50 and 50(2); Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 - Sections 7; General Clauses Act, 1897 - Sections 6; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 20, Rule 1; Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 - Rule 8 and 8(3)
AIR1958Bom279; (1957)59BOMLR1259; ILR1958Bom375; [1958]9STC135(Bom)
B.A. Palkhiwala and ;J.P. Pandit, Advs.
Tendolkar, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 34 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. A few relevant dates must be given at the outset. On the 28th of October 1952, proceedings under the...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskBhausa Ganusa Pawar and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Poona
Mumbai
Feb-16-1966
Company
Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 26A
[1966]62ITR75(Bom)
J.P. Pandit, Adv.
V.S. Desai, J.1. The reference arises out of the assessment made upon the assessee-firm for the assessment year 1956-57 in the status of an unregistered firm and a penalty of Rs. 3,400 imposed by the Income-tax...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskGokuldas Vs. Kikabhai Abdulali and ors.
Mumbai
Sep-13-1957
Direct Taxation
Income-tax Act, 1922 - Sections 5, 10, 10(4), 14, 22(5), 23, 23(1), 23(2), 23(5), 26(1), 29, 30, 33, 45 and 46(2); Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908
AIR1958Bom385; (1958)60BOMLR147; ILR1958Bom392; [1958]33ITR94(Bom)
J.P. Pandit, Adv.
ORDER1. This Reference which arises out of some extremely unusual facts has brought to light the difficulty of finding within the framework of the Indian Income-tax Act machinery for determining the liability of an alleged partner...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Damodar Krishnaji Nirgude Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South
Mumbai
Oct-30-1961
Direct Taxation
Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 64
[1962]46ITR1252(Bom)
J.P. Pandit, Adv.
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The assessee is an individual. The year with which we are concerned is...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskMotilal Bawalal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City I
Mumbai
Jun-28-1962
Direct Taxation
Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 33(4)
[1963]50ITR249(Bom)
J.P. Pandit, Adv.
Tambe, J.1. On a requisition made by this court the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has drawn up a statement of case and referred a question of law to this court under sub-section (2) of section 66 of...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskBrihan Maharashtra Sugar Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax ...
Mumbai
Feb-02-1971
Direct Taxation
Income-tax Act, 1922 - Sections 34
[1973]87ITR136(Bom)
J.P. Pandit, Adv.
Chandrachud, J. 1. This is a reference under section 66(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 for the decision of the following question. 'Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the reassessment proceedings against the applicant-company...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskJayasingrao Piraji Rao Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay South, P ...
Mumbai
Sep-19-1961
Direct Taxation
Income-tax Act, 1922 - Sections 10(2), 10(5), 24, 66 and 66(1); Income-tax Rules, 1922 - Rule 8
AIR1963Bom66; (1962)64BOMLR70; ILR1962Bom341
Y.P. Pandit, ;S.V. Mazumdar and ;J.P. Pandit, Advs.
Desai, J. 1. The short question, which arises on this reference under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, is whether the assessee is entitled to any depreciation under Clause (vi) of Sub-section (2) of Section...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskDeviprasad Kejriwal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bombay
Mumbai
Mar-20-1973
Direct Taxation
Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 18A, 18A(5), 18A(6), 18A(9), 28 and 34(1)
[1976]102ITR180(Bom)
J.P. Pandit, Adv.
Tulzapurkar, J.1. The question that has been referred to us by the Tribunal under section 66 (1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for our opinion runs as under :'Whether, on the facts and in the...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskLaljee Deoraj and Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City
Mumbai
Aug-29-1962
Direct Taxation
Income Tax Act, 1922 - Sections 26A; Indian Partnership Act - Sections 4 and 30(4)
[1964]51ITR234(Bom)
J.P. Pandit, Adv.
Tambe, J. 1. This is a reference under sub-section (1) of section 66 of the Act and it arises out of the rejection of application under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act for getting the...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskBherulal Maniklal Kothari Vs. the State of Bombay
Mumbai
Apr-19-1962
Sales Tax
Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953 - Sections 2(6), 26(1) and 34(1); Trade Marks Act, 1940 - Sections 30
[1962]13STC703(Bom)
J.P. Pandit, Adv.
Tambe, J.1. This is a reference under section 34(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1953. The facts giving rise to this reference in brief are : A partnership firm consisting of two partners Kundanlal Hansraj...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »