Ced V Ved - Judgment Search Results

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Pushpa Anand (Accountable Person of ...

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: (1999)157CTR(P& H)108; [1999]235ITR534(P& H)

of this court dealt with the concept of goodwill. While overruling the judgment of the Division Bench in CED v. Ved Parkash Jain , the Full Bench approved the ratio of the decision of the Madras High Court in

Commissioner of Gift-tax Vs. Nani Gopal Mondal

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: (1984)41CTR(Cal)64,[1984]150ITR469(Cal)

profit, if any, arising to the retiring partner from the receipt of such money.26. In the case of CED v. Ved Parkash jain , relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Addanki Narayanappa v. … entitled to carry on the business on the death of the partner.28. By this case, the case of CED v. Ved Parkash Jain was overruled. In this case, referring to the observations made in the case of Addanki Narayanappa

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Kanta Devi Taneja and Laxmi Devi Taneja

Court: Guwahati

valuation thereof. On behalf of the accountable persons the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CED v. Ved Parkash Jain was relied upon where it was held that it could not be said that on the … became necessary in view of the earlier Division Bench decision of the same High Court, which held in CED v. Ved Parkash Jain (which was relied upon by the Tribunal in the cases before us), that goodwill had no

Urmila Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1979)9CTR(Bom)81; [1980]122ITR958(Bom)

in view of the earlier Division Bench decision of the very same High Court which had held in CED v. Ved Parkash Jain , that goodwill had no value in a going concern of a partnership and its quantification

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Smt. Laxmi Bai

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: (1980)17CTR(All)84; [1980]126ITR73(All); [1981]5TAXMAN105(All)

leviable on such alleged share in goodwill, following the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CED v. Ved Parkash Jain and of the Gujarat High Court in Smt. Mrudula Nareshchandra v. CED : [1975]100ITR297(Guj) .4. Now, … goodwill passed on his death for purposes of estate duty.7. The Punjab and Haryana High Court had in CED v. Ved Parkashjain taken a contrary view that the share of goodwill of a deceased person in the assets of

Sardar Harbansingh Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad

Reported in: (1984)8ITD180(Hyd.)

meaning of Section 5. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CED v. Ved Parkash Jain [1974] 96 ITR 303 and the Madras High Court in A.K.D. Dharmaraja v. CED [1978] 111

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Gokuldas M. Shah (Decd.) (Accountable Pe ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1992)106CTR(Bom)182; [1992]193ITR437(Bom)

[1975]100ITR320(Mad) . However, following the Gujarat and Punjab High Courts decisions in the cases of CED v. Shri Ved Parkash Jain and Smt. Mrudula Nareshchandra v. CED : [1975]100ITR297(Guj) , respectively, the Tribunal held that the deceased … of the two firms. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the Madras High Courts decision reported in CED v. Ibrahim Gulam Hussain Currimbhoy : [1975]100ITR320(Mad) . However, following the Gujarat and Punjab High Courts decisions in the

Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Annaraj Mehta and Deoraj Mehta

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: [1979]119ITR544(Cal)

Clause 17 of the deed of partnership and, following a decision ofthe Punjab and Haryana High Court in CED v. Shri Ved Prakash Jain held that no goodwill of the said firm passed on thedeath of the deceased

Assistant Controller of Estate Vs. Nathulal Lunawat

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur

Reported in: (1983)3ITD52Jab

To support this contention, the assessee relied upon a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CED v. Shri Ved Parkash Jain [1974] 96 ITR 303. The Assistant Controller did not accept either of the above

Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2001)69TTJ(Del)480

Construction Co. Ltd. : [1989]177ITR219(Bom) , Sagar Co-op, Central Bank Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 186 ITR 292 and CED v. Hari Bux Poddar : [1990]182ITR423(Patna) .10. Thus, if a statutory provision is capable of two interpretations taking one … one apparent from the record. This view was expressed by Hon'ble Punjab High Court in the case of Ved Parkash Madan Lal v. CIT .9. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent