|
Aleyamma v Sales-tax Officer
|
1993 1 KLT 810
|
|
India - Kerala
|
circa 1993
|
|
|
 1
|
|
Bengal Nagpur Railway Co Ltd v Ruttanji Ramji
|
AIR 1938 PC 67
|
Privy Council
|
India
|
circa 1938
|
|
|
18 
|
|
Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax
|
[1986] INSC 134; (1986) 160 ITR 961; 1986 3 SCC 461; 1986 2 SCALE 41; [1986] JT 35; 1986 3 SCR 140; AIR 1987 SC 438; [1986] SCC (Tax) 601
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
15 Jul 1986
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
24
|
|
Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh v M Chandra Sekhar
|
[1984] INSC 228; 151 ITR 433; 1985 1 SCC 283; 1984 2 SCALE 973; 1985 2 SCR 215; AIR 1985 SC 114; [1985] SCC (Tax) 85
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
4 Dec 1984
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
28
|
|
Fashion Jewellers & Exporters v Sales-tax Officer
|
2005 3 KLT 353
|
|
India - Kerala
|
circa 2005
|
|
|
1
|
|
India United Mills Ltd v Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax, Bombay
|
[1954] INSC 102; [1955] 1 SCR 810; (1955) 27 ITR 20; AIR 1955 SC 79
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
28 Oct 1954
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
9
|
|
Mahairam Kamjidas's(1)case ','makes the machinery workable, utres valeat potius quam pereat" We, therefore, think that we should read sub-sec (6), according to the provision of which interest has to be calculated as provided in sub-sec (8) in a manner which makes it workable and thereby prevent the clear intention of sub-sec (8) being defeated Now, how is that best done? As we have (1)
|
(1940) 8 ITR 442; AIR 1940 PC 124
|
Privy Council
|
India
|
circa 1940
|
|
|
|
|
Union of India v AL Rallia Ram
|
[1963] INSC 108; [1964] 3 SCR 164; AIR 1963 SC 1685
|
Supreme Court of India
|
India
|
19 Apr 1963
|
LIIofIndia
|
|
36
|
|
Whitney v IRC
|
[1926] AC 37; 10 Tax Cas 88; 134 LT 98; 42 TLR 58; 51 HL 10
|
|
United Kingdom
|
circa 1926
|
LexisNexis / Westlaw
|
|
104
|
