Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232,813 judgments in total.

• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs L.G. Ramamurthy1999 PTD 942 · Madras High Court · 1996-04-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs K. Vivekananthan1999 PTD 2211 · Madras High Court · 1997-02-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Hira Lal Mehra1999 PTD 2199 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Gangabai Charities T1999 PTD 3289 · Madras High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Dr. G. Nallakrishnan1999 PTD 995 · Madras High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Dhansukhlal J. Gajjar1999 PTD 3782 · Gujarat High Court · 1998-05-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Deepak Dumra1999 PTD 3268 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1997-11-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Bhavani Dew Sadhaiya1999 PTD 983 · Madras High Court · 1996-07-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Babu Ram Gupta (Late)1999 PTD 1723 · Allahabad High Court · 1997-08-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs Ajoy Kumar Saharia1999 PTD 1215 · Gauhati High Court · 1998-01-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs A.N. Natarajan1999 PTD 1719 · Madras High Court · 1996-07-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax., Pakistan Cables Ltd., Exide Pakistan Ltd_0985f8f5PTCL 1999 CL. 645 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  sales taxpartly manufactured goodsdeeming provisionlegislative competenceconstitutional interpretationlegal fictiontaxable eventinternal consumption
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment consolidates seventeen appeals concerning the liability of sales tax on partly manufactured goods used internally in the production of finished goods that are exempt from sales tax. The core legal questions were whether such internal consumption constitutes a taxable sale and whether the Federal Legislature possessed the constitutional competence to enact deeming provisions, such as Section 3(6)(d) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, that treat internal use as a sale. The Court held that the use of partly manufactured goods in the production of exempt finished goods attracts sales tax liability. Reaffirming the Noorani Cotton Corporation precedent, the Court ruled that Section 3(6)(d) validly creates a legal fiction treating internal use as a sale to ensure tax is captured at an appropriate stage. The key principle laid down is that legislative entries in the Constitution are to be interpreted liberally and with wide amplitude, and deeming provisions in taxing statutes are valid when they possess a rational nexus to the taxable subject matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does the internal use of partly manufactured goods in the production of exempt finished goods attract sales tax liability?
  • Is the Federal Legislature competent to enact provisions that deem the internal use of goods as a sale for the purpose of levying sales tax?
  • Should legislative entries in the Constitution be interpreted with a narrow or liberal construction regarding the power of taxation?
  • Does the definition of sale in the Sales Tax Act, 1951, constitutionally permit the inclusion of transactions where a manufacturer uses their own goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax and others vs Hunza Central Asian Textile and Woollen Mills Ltd. and others1999 SCMR 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-11
  Sales taxPartly manufactured goodsLegal fictionDeeming provisionFederal Legislative ListLegislative competenceTax exemptionMarketable item
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from conflicting decisions of the Sindh and Lahore High Courts regarding the assessment of sales tax on intermediate, partly manufactured goods retained by manufacturers for their own use in creating end products exempt from sales tax. The primary legal questions were whether liability for sales tax is incurred on such internally consumed, marketable intermediate goods under the Sales Tax Act, 1951, and whether the Federal Legislature possessed the constitutional competence under the legislative entries governing taxes on sales and purchases (such as Entry 43(f) of the 1962 Constitution and Entry 49 of the 1973 Constitution) to treat internal use or consumption as a deemed 'sale'. The Supreme Court held that under sections 2(12), 2(15), 3(4)(iv), and 3(6)(d) of the Act, sales tax is chargeable on identifiable, marketable intermediate products if the finished product is tax-exempt. The Court affirmed that constitutional legislative entries must be given broad, liberal interpretation, and the creation of a limited legal fiction deeming internal consumption to be a sale is constitutionally valid and within federal competence.

  Questions settled

  • Is liability to pay sales tax incurred on partly manufactured, intermediate goods used in the manufacture of a finished product when that final finished product is exempt from sales tax?
  • Is section 3(6)(d) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 a charging section capable of imposing tax liability on goods kept by a manufacturer for internal use?
  • Does the Federal Legislature possess the constitutional competence under the legislative entries for 'taxes on sales and purchases' to enact deeming provisions that treat the internal use or consumption of goods by a manufacturer as a sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax And Others vs Hunza Central Asian Textile and Woollen Mills Ltd. And Others,1999 P.C.T.L.R. 819 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  sales taxpartly manufactured goodsdeeming provisionlegislative competenceconstitutional interpretationinternal consumptiontax avoidance
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated matter involved seventeen appeals concerning the liability to pay sales tax on 'partly manufactured goods' used by a manufacturer for their own production when the final finished product is exempt from sales tax. The core legal questions were whether such internal consumption constitutes a taxable event under the Sales Tax Act, 1951, and whether the Federal Legislature possessed the constitutional competence to enact deeming provisions—specifically Section 3(6)(d)—that classify such internal use as a 'sale.' The Supreme Court held that the Sales Tax Act, 1951, aims to ensure tax is paid at one stage of production. Where the final product is exempt, the intermediate goods used in its manufacture remain liable to tax to prevent tax avoidance. The Court reaffirmed that Section 3(6)(d) serves as a valid charging section. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Federal Legislature acted within its competence under the relevant constitutional entries regarding 'taxes on sales and purchases,' emphasizing that legislative entries must be interpreted with broad, dynamic latitude, and that the legal fiction created by the Act bears a rational nexus to the concept of sale.

  Questions settled

  • Does the use of partly manufactured goods in the production of an exempt final product attract sales tax liability under the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
  • Is the Federal Legislature competent to enact deeming provisions that classify the internal use of goods by a manufacturer as a 'sale' for tax purposes?
  • Does the Sales Tax Act, 1951, permit the levy of sales tax on intermediate goods when the final finished product is exempt from such tax?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Incometax, Companies1 Karachi vs Premier Bank1999 SCMR 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-14
  income taxadmissible allowancebusiness expenditurepenal interestpenaltybanking companiesdeductions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals challenging a judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the disallowance of deductions claimed by banking companies for penal interest paid under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 and the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956. The core legal question was whether liabilities incurred on account of penal interest for failing to maintain required credit balances can be claimed as admissible deductions under section 10(2)(xvi) of the repealed Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeals, holding that expenditure incurred as a penalty, fine, or penal interest on account of the infraction of law is not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and cannot be permitted as a deductible allowance. The key principle laid down is that while revenue expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business are deductible, payments resulting from the violation of statutory provisions operate as a deterrent and cannot be claimed as allowable business expenditures, regardless of whether termed as penal interest or penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether penal interest paid for violating statutory credit balance requirements can be claimed as an admissible deduction under section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • Does expenditure incurred as a penalty or fine on account of the infraction of law qualify as an expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business?
  • Can payments made in the nature of penal interest be equated with ordinary business interest for the purpose of income tax deductions?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Incometax vs Nasir Ali and another1999 SCMR 563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-30
  export rebateregistered firmincome taxsuper taxassesseefinance ordinanceinterpretation of statutesproviso
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed with the leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgments of the High Court of Sindh regarding Income Tax References for the assessment year 1978-79. The core legal question was whether the benefit of export rebate envisaged in clause (a) of subsection (4) of section 3 of the Finance Ordinance, 1978 is admissible to the individual partners of a registered firm in addition to the export rebate already allowed to the registered firm itself in respect of its export sales. The Supreme Court held that the expression 'an assessee' in the enacting part of section 3(4)(a) of the Finance Ordinance, 1978 includes both the registered firm and its individual partners. The Court reasoned that since a registered firm pays super-tax while its individual partners pay income-tax, both are entitled to the export rebate in respect of the respective taxes payable by them, and the proviso to the section only sets a ceiling for the registered firm's super-tax without excluding the partners' statutory right to the rebate. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of export rebate under section 3(4)(a) of the Finance Ordinance, 1978 is admissible to the partners of a registered firm in addition to the rebate allowed to the firm?
  • Does the expression 'an assessee' in section 3(4)(a) of the Finance Ordinance, 1978 include both a registered firm and its individual partners?
  • What is the scope and effect of a proviso in relation to the main enacting part of a taxing statute?
  • Whether the proviso to section 3(4)(a) of the Finance Ordinance, 1978 excludes individual partners of a registered firm from claiming export rebate on income-tax?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income. Tax vs Dalmia Magnesite Corporation1999 PTD 3154 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax/Wealth Tax, Companies-II, Lawrence1999 PTD 4147 · Lahore High Court · 1999-09-23
  income taxadvance taxdeduction at sourcesuppliessale of goodsstatutory interpretationde novo proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns eight Income Tax Appeals arising from a dispute over whether purchases made by the respondent/assessee during the financial years 1990-1995 constituted 'supplies' under Section 50(4)(a) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, thereby requiring the deduction of advance income tax. The Assessing Officer had treated these purchases as 'supplies' and assessed the respondent in default for failing to deduct tax. The Appellate Tribunal had previously set aside these assessments, holding that 'purchases' were distinct from 'supplies' and thus outside the scope of the Ordinance. The Lahore High Court held that the term 'supplies' is of wide amplitude and encompasses 'sales' where a seller provides goods to a buyer for a price. The Court ruled that the Tribunal's interpretation was legally erroneous and set it aside. Consequently, the Court restored the order of the First Appellate Authority, which had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo determination of the tax liability, requiring a factual inquiry into whether specific purchases qualified as taxable supplies under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'supplies' under Section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 include 'sales' of goods?
  • Is a purchaser required to deduct advance income tax on payments made for the purchase of goods under Section 50(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Can the Commissioner of Income Tax grant an exemption from tax deduction at source under Section 50(4)(b) of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax/Wealth Tax vs C. R. Rajendran1999 PTD 3768 · Madras High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies-1 Karachi vs Premier Bank1999 PTD 3005 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-14
  income taxbusiness deductionpenal intereststatutory infractionallowable expenditurebanking companiesrevenue expenditure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment regarding the admissibility of 'penal interest' payments as business deductions under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The respondent banks failed to maintain required credit balances under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 and the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, incurring 'penal interest' liabilities. The core legal question was whether such payments, arising from statutory infractions, constituted deductible expenditure under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Supreme Court held that while revenue expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes are deductible, payments made as penalties or fines due to statutory violations are not. The Court observed that the penal interest charged under Section 36(4) of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, functioned as a deterrent against non-compliance, effectively operating as a penalty. Consequently, the Court ruled that such payments were not laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and were therefore inadmissible as deductions. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can payments made as 'penal interest' for the violation of statutory credit balance requirements be claimed as deductible business expenditure under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • Does the distinction between 'penalty' and 'penal interest' under the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, affect the admissibility of such payments as business deductions?
  • Is expenditure incurred due to an infraction of law considered to be laid out 'wholly and exclusively' for the purpose of business under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Wolkem (Pvt.) Ltd. D.B.1999 PTD 2692 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-08-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Wheel and Rim Co. of India Ltd.1999 PTD 860 · Madras High Court · 1996-02-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Wavin (India) Ltd.1999 PTD 3162 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-09-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Vippy Solvex Products (Pvt.) Ltd.1999 PTD 2621 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-07-11Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Vippy Solvex Products (P.) Ltd.1999 PTD 3438 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Vijay Dal Mills1999 PTD 3376 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-05-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Venkateswara Hatchery (Pvt.) Ltd. , . (1999 PTD 2183 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1995-11-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Vasu Puziya Jain Derashar Pedi Undri1999 PTD 2548 · Rajasthan High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Varas International (P.) Ltd. , .1999 PTD 375 · Calcutta High Court · 1997-02-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Vander C.C. Malen and others1999 PTD 89 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs V.T. Joseph1999 PTD 910 · Kerala High Court · 1996-09-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs V. V. George1999 PTD 2334 · Kerala High Court · 1996-09-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs V. S. T. Motors (P.) Ltd.1999 PTD 1037 · Madras High Court · 1996-07-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs V. P. John, Janatha Medicals1999 PTD 2775 · Kerala High Court · 1996-07-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs V. Krishnamoorthy and another1999 PTD 3076 · Madras High Court · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs V. Gopal1999 PTD 137 · Madras High Court · 1997-01-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Upper India Steel Manufacturing and Engineering Co. (P.) Ltd.I. T. C1999 PTD 2190 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1996-05-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Umeshchand K. Patel1999 PTD 314 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-03-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Udayan L. Gajjar1999 PTD 3765 · Gujarat High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Udaya Pictures (P.) Ltd. , .1999 PTD 540 · Kerala High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs U. Mohan Rao1999 PTD 1858 · Madras High Court · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Tushar Commercial Co. Ltd.1999 PTD 3611 · Calcutta High Court · 1998-02-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Trinity Hospital1999 PTD 237 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-01-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Trichy Steel Rolling Mills Ltd.1999 PTD 3834 · Madras High Court · 1996-08-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Trichy Distilleries and Chemicals Ltd.1999 PTD 4006 · Madras High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Thulasidar & Co.1999 PTD 2778 · Madras High Court · 1996-10-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Thakurdas Aidasani1999 PTD 2137 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs T.T. Krishnamachari & Co.1999 PTD 62 · Madras High Court · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs T. Abdul Majeed1999 PTD 3941 · Kerala High Court · 1996-09-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Swaran Singh Kanwar1999 PTD 963 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-02-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Surya Bhagavan Vastralayam , .1999 PTD 2567 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-08-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sureshchandra Gupta1999 PTD 1979 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sureshchand Mittal1999 PTD 2813 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Suresh Gokuldas1999 PTD 3191 · Madras High Court · 1996-11-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Supreme Credit Corporation Ltd.1999 PTD 3481 · Calcutta High Court · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sundaram Spinning Mills and 2 others1999 PTD 270 · Madras High Court · 1996-04-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sundaram Industries Ltd.1999 PTD 4106 · Madras High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Suman Tea and Plywood Industries1999 PTD 1282 · Calcutta High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd.1999 PTD 3255 · Supreme Court of India · 1999-02-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Steel Tubes of India Ltd.1999 PTD 2597 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Star Oil Mills1999 PTD 2836 · Madras High Court · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Standard Maltings and Allied1999 PTD 1269 · Gauhati High Court · 1997-01-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sri Venkateswara Timber Depot1999 PTD 3346 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-01-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs South India Viscose Ltd. (No.2)1999 PTD 3322 · Madras High Court · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs SMTP. K. Noorjahan1999 PTD 3828 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-01-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Smt. Nandini Nopany1999 PTD 3343 · Calcutta High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Smt. M.C. Sathiyavathi1999 PTD 183 · Madras High Court · 1996-04-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Smt. M. Kalpagam1999 PTD 2480 · Madras High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Smt. Jyoti Dhillow1999 PTD 3994 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Smt. D. Valliammal1999 PTD 3476 · Madras High Court · 1996-06-27Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Smt. Bilkishbai1999 PTD 614 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-03-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Smt. Asha Rani1999 PTD 2148 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1996-08-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Smithkline Beecham Consumer1999 PTD 1983 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1996-09-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Simpson General Financeco. Ltd. (), .1999 PTD 3380 · Madras High Court · 1997-01-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Simpson & Co. Ltd. (No.2)1999 PTD 3550 · Madras High Court · 1996-06-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Simpson & Co. Ltd. (No.1)1999 PTD 3483 · Madras High Court · 1996-06-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shree Tea Co. and others1999 PTD 1490 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-01-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shree Synthetics Ltd.1999 PTD 2179 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shree Ram Jaiswal1999 PTD 1018 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-10-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shree Amrit Cold Storage1999 PTD 3132 · Allahabad High Court · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shiva Shanker Bore Wells . .1999 PTD 498 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-08-29Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shiv Raj Bhatia1999 PTD 1877 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-05-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shiv Chand Satnam Paul1999 PTD 3201 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1997-04-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sherally Meherally & Sons1999 PTD 3423 · Bombay High Court · 1997-11-13Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shelly Products and others1999 PTD 368 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-07-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sharadaprasad Motilal & Bros.1999 PTD 3179 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shahzadi Begum1999 PTD 463 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1996-07-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Shah Construction Co. Ltd.1999 PTD 3485 · Bombay High Court · 1997-07-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Satyadev Chemical Ltd.1999 PTD 943 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-12-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Satya Nand Munjal1999 PTD 3024 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1996-05-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sattandas Mohandas Sidhi1999 PTD 3677 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Satpal Vijay Kumar and others1999 PTD 1484 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-02-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sasidhara Shenoy & Brothers1999 PTD 4099 · Kerala High Court · 1996-09-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Santosh Rice Mills1999 PTD 3560 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-03-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Santhosh Textiles1999 PTD 2717 · Kerala High Court · 1996-06-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Sant Das Nihal Chand1999 PTD 1026 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-07-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs S.T.I. Biplus Tubing (India) Ltd.1999 PTD 2492 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-07-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs S.M. Bhatiya Associates D.B.1999 PTD 2084 · Rajasthan High Court · 1996-03-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs S. R. Patton1999 PTD 1211 · Supreme Court of India · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Roadmaster Industries of India (P.)1999 PTD 2791 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1996-05-03Read full judgment →