COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX versus PHONEIX ASSURANCE CO. LTD
Income Tax Act 1922 First Schedule, R6 and Section 10 (7) of the Insurance Act (X of 1938), Sections 11, 15, 18, 21 and 102 of the Income Tax Officer are not expenditure in the jurisdiction of the Taxation Reserve, the Income Tax Officer has There was no jurisdiction to investigate or be separated from the profit and loss image and profit account by the Controller of Insurance under the Insurance Act, 1938, by the Assamese Insurance Company under the Insurance Act, 1938. The linked account was linked. , And the limited jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer was to exclude expenses from the balance profit only in such accounts which were not valid under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 The Income Tax Officer was not eligible to disturb the integrity of these accounts. Which was presented by them. In the case of the Income Tax Act, with respect to the Ion Head business head of the Income Tax Act, 1922, using the general rules for calculating profits and profits and assessing taxes under the Insurance Act, 1938. If the item is not spent on material and essence, it is beyond the power of the Income Tax Officer to enforce the provisions of the First. To bring this into the tax net, the Schedule R, R6, Income Tax Act, 1922 was added to the balance of profits and added [[jurisdiction]].
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
