4 1 - Judgment Search Results

“4. I Have Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Gone Vs. ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

CWP No.8795 of 2014 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.8795 of 2014 Date of decision: May

ito, Wd-4(1), Modasa Vs. Parishram Quarry Works

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Reported in: (2006)6SOT78(Ahd.)

reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Bench in the case of Dhorajia Construction Co. v. ITO (1992 ) 42 ITD 450 (Ahd.).Referring to this decision, he contended that once it is accepted that a sum of Rs. … filed by the revenue and is directed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) dated 31-12-2001 for assessment year 1988-89.1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in law and as well as in facts in deleting the addition

Bkr Capital Pvt. Ltd vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 4.1., Delhi

Court: Delhi

19738/2025 & CM APPL. 82448/2025 BKR CAPITAL PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukul Katyal, Adv.versusINCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4.1., DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC. + W.P.(C) 19769/2025 & CM APPL.

thecommissioner of Wealth-tax Andhra Pr Vs. NitIn I.Patel, 4-1-833, Ab ...

Court: Andhra Pradesh

Sr.JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM W.T.C.No.18 of 2000 19-12-2013 The Commissioner of Wealth-tax Andhra Pradesh-II, Hyderabad...Petitioner Nitin I. Patel, 4-1-833, Abids, Hyderabad...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sr.J.V.Prasad, Learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department Assisted by Smt.M.Kiranmayi. Counsel

Loyalty Solutions and Research (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of In ...

Court: Karnataka

earlier assessing officer had not examined the issue with due diligence, which according to the petitioner, is incorrect. 4. The department has filed its statement of objections to refute the petition averments and it is particularly contended … 1. Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri K.P. Kumar appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri

Chaman Lal Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax Delhi 4(1), New Delhi and An ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2000)164CTR(Del)192; [2000]245ITR730(Delhi)

22.08.1995. It was also submitted that conclusions regarding service of notice under Section 148 are not factually correct. 4. Section 260-A(1) of the Act reads as ollows:- 'An appeal shall lie to the High Court from every

George Thomas Vs. Smt. Srividya and the Tax Recovery Officer Iv(1)

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR2003Mad290; 2003(1)CTC705; (2003)1MLJ823

1. All these appeals arise from the common judgment dated 08.06.1998 made in C.S. Nos. 866 of 1994, 485 of 1997 and 1505 of 1995. 2. For the purpose of convenience, Smt. Srividya will be referred to

C.P. Harish Vs. the Central Warehousing Corporation, Represented by It ...

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2000(4)CTC517

on to decide the matter on merits. Rejecting the said contention. Their Lordships have held as follows:- (para 4)'4......We are unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The irregularities which were the subject-matter of … Aggrieved by the Charge Memo dated 20.6.1995 of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 11015 of 1996. The verysame petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 12246 of 1998 against the Charge Memo dated

Synthetic and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. D.R. Chawla, Income-tax Officer, Comp ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1984)39CTR(Bom)247; [1985]154ITR504(Bom); [1984]17TAXMAN104(Bom)

payable the income returned. The petitioner thereupon by letter dated May 5, 1978, requested the ITO, Companies Circle IV(1), Bombay, to pass a provisional order under s. 141A of the Act and to refund the sum of

R.M. Bhade Shop Inspector, Pune Vs. P.S. Malgaonkar Div. Mag.4.i.F. an ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 1990(2)BomCR426

exempted from the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, there must be notification under section 4 of the said Act under which an exemption could be given by the State Government and in the … Inspector, Pune Municipal Corporation has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal of the present respondent No. 1 of the offences punishable under sections 8 and 5 read with section 52(1)(c) of the Bombay Shops and