Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: the guru nanak dev university amritsar act 1969 Court: mumbai Page 1 of about 2 results (0.031 seconds)

Aug 14 2003 (TRI)

Mid East Port Folio Management Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Reported in : (2003)87ITD537(Mum.)

..... distribution of electricity." (rest of the form omitted as considered not necessary).our attention was then drawn to section 2(29) of the gujarat sales-tax act, 1969, where "sale price" has been defined to include consideration received for the transfer of the right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not ..... necessary to do so. in fact, there can be no common rules for finding out the genuineness of a particular slb transaction, which can be of universal application, nor can any such norms be exhaustive. however, very broadly and without limiting ourselves to what has been stated in our order, the following may ..... the tribunal was that the transaction had the colour of a mere paper transaction.p.k.f. finance ltd. v. jt. cit (ita no. 533/asr/1999--amritsar bench) this is not a case of a sale and lease back transaction at all. the facts are completely different and, therefore, the order is not applicable. ..... to permitted at this stage. attention is drawn to the judgment of the madras high court in perumal naicker v. t. ramaswami kone and anr. air 1969 mad 346.91. referring to p. 5 of the paper book containing the additional evidence filed by the department, mr. dastur pointed out that it refers ..... collection of taxes. cases on point are cit v. motor & general stores (p) ltd. (1967) 66 itr 692 (sc) and cit v. b.m. kharwar (1969) 72 itr 603 (sc). this approach has been reiterated recently by the gujarat high court in banyan & bery v. cit (1996) 222 itr 831 (guj).24. mcdowell .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 07 2015 (HC)

Pushpalata Sohanlal Sharma Vs. Smt. Brij Madanlal Sharma and Others

Court : Mumbai

..... adjacent. the brothers looked after the shops. the mother-in-law was running house. sohanlal had four children. they initially stayed in amritsar. they moved to mumbai in 1969. they lived in mumbai in 1970. 1 child continued his further studies in india, 1 child in switzerland and 1 in america. ..... the suit and produced by pushpa from her own custody showing her name as pushpa. similar such document executed one year later of punjab university being a certificate of modern indian languages examinations dated 13th august, 1951 is also produced by her. it is a document of similar age ..... under inquiry. such statements are called oral evidence. the oral evidence to prove possession is also a mode of proof provided under the evidence act. the testimony of reliable witnesses about the possession cannot be brushed aside by giving superficial treatment or by ignoring it. the courts are required ..... uttamchand sharma offered to finance separate accommodation for brij and himself in the year 1970. they had negotiations with garware through advocate v. a. phadke acting as common solicitor for both parties. garware demanded rs.99,000/- for the suit premises. mr. phadke was to reduce and settle the purchase ..... birth certificate in evidence. the original birth certificate would carry a presumption of correctness as a public document under section 79 of the indian evidence act. that is a rebuttable presumption. 25. such presumption is sought to be rebutted by pushpa. pushpa has claimed that it is a forged .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //