May V Inland - Judgment Search Results
Moodie Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioners and Anothers. Sotnick V. Inlan ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-30-1991
Reported in: [1992]193ITR501(Cal)
has been rendered ineffective by the subsequent decision of the House of Lords in W. T. Ramsay Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] A. C. 300. The special commissioners so held and their decision was affirmed by Hoffmann … BALCOMBE L. J. - These two appeals, by taxpayers from order made by Hoffmann J. on 4 May 1990, raise the question whether a tax avoidance scheme, which was accepted as affective for its purpose by
Racecourse Betting Control Board Vs. Young (inspector of Taxes). Racec ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1958
Reported in: [1960]39ITR553(Cal)
as the first head, the runners allowances.It will be seen, therefore, that the two questions for the court may be formulated as follows : first, what is, in truth, the scope of the boards business, and what … an encouragement to them so to do. It was clearly proved that the business done by the board varies in direct proportion to the number of runners on the races with which they are concerned, and that,
C. H. W. (Huddersfield) Ltd. Vs. Inland Revenue Commissioner. Spencer ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-22-1962
Reported in: [1965]58ITR444(Cal)
the whole position of the members under the companys constitutio : see F. P. H. Finance Trust Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (No. 2).Since the commissioners are entitled to consider the matter thus broadly it seems, in the … of the accounting period in question. But once it has been decided that 'members' include those persons who may have sold their shares during the relevant period, then I think it is very difficult successfully to contend
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free