Advanced Search Results
Dy. Cit Vs. Trab Enterprises
Mumbai
Jul-08-2002
Direct Taxation
(2004)90TTJ(Mumbai)1093
P. Peerya, for the Assessee Sanjeev Shah, for the Revenue
ORDERV.D. Wakharkar, A.M.:These two appeals by the revenue raise an identical ground. They are therefore, disposed of by a common order.2. Both the appeals raise the following ground :'On facts and in the circumstances of the...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskNandlal Mukundlal Pittie Vs. Wto
Mumbai
Oct-09-2001
Direct Taxation
(2002)75TTJ(Mumbai)603
Atul K. Jasani, for the Assessee P. Peerya, for the Revenue
Counsels: Atul K. Jasani, for the Assessee P. Peerya, for the RevenueCiting Reference: CIT v. Apsara Talkies Discussed
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskJt Cit Vs. Oceanic Farms (Export) (P) Ltd.
Mumbai
Jan-29-2004
Direct Taxation
(2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)821
P. Peerya, for the Assessee Sanjeev Shah, for the Revenue.
ORDERI.P. Bansal, J.M.:This is an appeal filed by the revenue and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals), dated 29-3-2000, for the assessment year 1997-98.2. Grounds of appeal read as under :'1 On the facts...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask18-section briefs on any result in this list
Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Phoenix Mills Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai
Feb-14-2002
Direct Taxation
(2002)83ITD65(Mum.)
1. The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A)-I, Mumbai dt.27th Nov., 1992, and raised the following ground; "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition...
Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & AskAI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›