Cit vs mysore chromite ltd

Author: nyee

August undefined, 2024

WebMar 9, 2024 · PR CIT Vs LH Sugar Factory Pvt Ltd (D ated: February 27, 2024) On appeal, the Supreme Court condones the delay and grants leave to the Revenue to defend their case against M/s L H Sugar Factory in relation to issue of carbon credit. 2024-TIOL-102-SC-IT CIT Vs Balak Capital Pvt Ltd (D ated: February 27, 2024) WebJan 14, 2013 · In the opinion of the CIT (Appeals), the language used in the rules clearly specified that enhanced depreciation allowance is available only when the trucks are …

CT Case Analysis PDF Invoice Negotiable Instrument

WebFeb 24, 2016 · Among the factors the court should consider in making this decision are: (1) the weight accorded the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the place where the operative facts … WebCIT vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority (2010) 322 ITR 61 (P & H) 14.S. 22 - INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY – BUSINESS INCOME - S. 28 . Rent from premises with fittings. Appointment between business income and income from house property held to be justified. CIT & Anr. vs. Mysore Inter Continental Hotel P. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 116 … inatista

The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras Vs. Mysore Chromite …

WebJan 12, 2024 · CIT (A) has upheld the disallowance of Rs.77,18,481/-being claim of sustainable development expenses by simply recording the fact that “assessee has not adduced any cogent argument for deleting the sustainable development expenses”, without going into the fact that in the earlier years, sustainable development expenses are being … WebMysore Chromite Limited [1954] INSC 106 (1 November 1954) January February March April May June July August September October November December. The … WebApr 29, 2011 · Cited By: 1. Coram: 1. ...concluded by a decision of this Court in IT Ref. No. 312 of 1961 in the case of CIT vs. Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd., judgment wherein was...of this Court in IT Ref. No. 166 of 1985 in the case of CIT vs. New India Sugar Mills judgment wherein was delivered on 12th April, 1990...assessee. 5. inches in foot size

A Note on State of Madras v. Ramalingam & Co., A.I.R. 1956 Mad.

Web2 I.C.D.S Ltd v. CIT [2013] 29 taxmann.com 129 (SC) The Supreme Court in the case of Poddar Cement (P.) Ltd.3 and Mysore Minerals Ltd.4 observed that it is the beneficial ownership and not the titular ownership that is relevant for a valid claim of depreciation allowance under the Act. However, in the instant case, the Supreme Court Web3 Australian Knitting Mill, Ltd. AIR 1936 PC 34. CIT v. Mysore Chromite Ltd. (1955) 1 SCR 849 : AIR 1955 SC 98. 2.4 Passing of property. P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar v. 2 Express Newspapers Ltd. (1968) 2 SCR 239 : AIR 1968 SC 741. 2.5 The right of an innocent buyer. Agricultural Market Committee v. ination networkWebJul 27, 2015 · Podar Cement Private Limited (1997) 226 ITR 625 and Mysore Minerals v CIT 106 Taxman 166 the legal position is no longer res integra. In Podar Cement Private Limited the Supreme Court was called upon to consider whether the income derived by the assessee on the flat or the building were income from other sources and not income from … inativas 2016

"WebThe Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras Vs. Mysore Chromite Limited [1954] INSC 106 (1 November 1954) DAS, SUDHI RANJAN MAHAJAN, MEHAR CHAND (CJ) HASAN, GHULAM BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (Act XI of 1922), s. 4-Profits derived by the assesseeWhether arose or were received in British Indian in the … " - Cit vs mysore chromite ltd

Cit vs mysore chromite ltd

ON THE COMPOSITION OF SOME INDIAN CHROMITES*

WebCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras v/sMysore Chromite Limited Case Referred 44 of 1948 Decided On, 29 March 1951 At, High Court of Judicature at Madras By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYANARAYANA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. C. S. Rama Rao Saheb, T. T. Viswanatha Ayyar, Advocates. Judgment Text … WebJUSTICE VISWANATHA SASTRI Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras - Appellant Versus Mysore Chromite Limited - Respondent Case No : No Decided On : 29 March 1951. …

Did you know?

WebJan 14, 2013 · In the opinion of the CIT (Appeals), the language used in the rules clearly specified that enhanced depreciation allowance is available only when the trucks are used in the business of running them on hire also. The appellant has only a leasing business and it does not run a business of hiring trucks to the public. WebMysore Chromite Limited . Case Information CITATION CODES citation codes CASE NO. On Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 29th day of March, 1951 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Case Referred No. 44 of 1948.,Civil Appeal No. 117 of 1953, decided on 1st day of November, 1954 ATTORNEY(S)

WebApr 9, 2016 · The management and control of the assessee company was vested in Messrs. Oakley Bowden & Co. (Madras) Ltd., another private limited company … WebMysore Chromite Ltd.(1) held that in respect of the five cases in which the assessee drew the bills in favour of the buyers the sales were effected in Pakistan whereas in the two …

WebVodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. Assistant CIT, 2010 Tax LR, 618 (Ker) 14. State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. ... CIT V/s Mysore Chromite Ltd.; 1955, 1 SCR 849. 2. Badri Prasad V/s State of M.P.; 1965, 3 SCR 381. 3. ... The Mogu Liner Ltd. Vs. Manipal Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1991 Ker, 183 5. Indian Airlines Vs. WebCIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. 236 ITR 518 followed in CIT vs. Abdul Ahad 247 ITR 710 (J&K) wherein CIT vs. T.vs.S. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. 222 ITR 344 (SC) …

WebMysore Sugar Co. Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 723 107 110 Business Expenditure –Allowability - Tests of distinctions between Business expenditure and Capital expenditure [section …

WebJun 30, 2024 · CIT v. Mysore Chromite Ltd. (1955) 1 SCR 849 : AIR 1955 SC 98 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link Civil Appeal No. 117 of 1953 … inches in footWebThe Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras Vs. Mysore Chromite Limited [1954] INSC 106 (1 November 1954) 2. Navin Chandra Mafatlal Vs. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City [1954] INSC 107 (1 November 1954) ... Muir Mills Co., Ltd. Vs. Suti Mills Mazdoor Union, Kanpur [1954] INSC 110 (19 November 1954) 6. P. Joseph John Vs. … inches in fractionsWebMysore Chromite Ltd . (1) held that in respect of the five cases in which the assessee drew the bills in favour of the buyers the sales were effected in Pakistan whereas in the two cases in which the bills were drawn in favour of the assessee's agent at Calcutta, the sales were effected in India. (1) 27 I.T.R. 128. 140 inative tech solutionsWebTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MADRAS vs MYSORE CHROMITE LIMITED. Supreme Court, 01-11-1954 Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related Vincent … inches in fractions to decimalsWebCommissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras v/sMysore Chromite Limited Case Referred 44 of 1948 Decided On, 29 March 1951 At, High Court of Judicature at Madras By, THE … inches in fractions to mmWebsentative of some of the Indian chromite deposits in Andhra, Bihar, Orissa, Mysore and Madras, and include one specimen from Baluchistan in Pakistan. The location of the main chromite deposits of India is indi-cated on the accompanying sketch map. UsBs on CnnourrB Chromite is used for various purposes which can be classed as metal- inches in four feetWebNov 3, 2024 · CIT v. Mysore Chromite Ltd. (1955) 1 SCR 849 : AIR 1955 SC 98 Posted on June 30, 2024 CIT v. Mysore Chromite Ltd. (1955) 1 SCR 849 : AIR 1955 SC 98 indiankanoon.org link casemine.com link legitquest.com link Continue reading Posted in LLB III Sem, Special Contracts, Topic 7: Effects of Sale, Uncategorized Leave a comment inches in fraction chart