Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

April 1998

Sec. 80J(3), Section 80J

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in directing the ITO to re- examine an issue which has become final in the earlier assessment year?

Avijit Das / April 28, 1998

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. India Forge & Drop Stampings Ltd. Section 80J(3) Asst. Year 1980-81 R. Jayasimha Babu […]

Sec. 35B, Sec. 40A(8), Section 40, Section 40A

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35B of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the expenditure incurred by it on its goodwill chartering business in the asst. yr. 1978-79?

Avijit Das / April 28, 1998

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. Sections 35B, 40A(8) Asst. Year 1978-79 Janarthanam & Mrs.

Madras H.C : The petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 2nd respondent in F. No. 473/248/88-FTD dt. 3rd Jan., 1989 and to quash the same and also to direct the 2nd respondent to grant approval of the agreement dt. 11th June, 1985 entered into with M/s Techno Link Ltd., Martins Chambers, Channel Islands by the petitioner under s. 80-O of the IT Act and consequential relief by the 2nd and 3rd respondents

Avijit Das / April 27, 1998

High Court Of Madras Pallavan Transport Consultancy Services Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Section 80-O Asst. Year 1986-87,

Income Tax Case Laws

Allahabad H.C : Where an order for the sale of immovable property has been made, if the defaulter can satisfy the TRO that there is reason to believe that the amount of the certificate may be raised by the mortgage or lease or private sale of such property, or some part thereof, or of any other immovable property of the defaulter, the TRO may, on his application, postpone the sale of the property comprised in the order for sale, on such terms, and for such period as he thinks proper, to enable him to raise the amount.

Avijit Das / April 25, 1998

High Court Of Allahabad Amar Chand Agrawal & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors. Section Sch. II, r. 66 Ravi S.

Section 263, Section 5

Calcutta H.C : The decision in the appeal before the Tribunal was in favour of the assessee. Thequestions at the instance of the assessee had been sought for in respect of some points on the issue only because the reference was sought for by the Department against the order of the Tribunal.

Avijit Das / April 24, 1998

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Method Trading & Investment Ltd. Sections 5, 263 Asst. Year 1984-85 Shyamal Kumar Sen

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the income from the business of Ashok Match Industries (B-Unit) run by Sankaralingam and his wife as trustees after partition cannot be assessed in the status of an AOP as such but should be assessed on each beneficial individually ?

Avijit Das / April 24, 1998

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Yennarkay R. Ravindran Family Trust Sections 164 Asst. Year 1976-77 Janarthanam & Mrs. A.

Section 15, Section 17

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 28,347, Rs. 33,890, Rs. 41,629 and Rs. 45,821 received by the assessee from the British Government for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1981- 82 were taxable in his hands as salary ?

Avijit Das / April 22, 1998

High Court Of Madras Late J.R. Daniel By L.R. Yesumani Grace vs. CIT Sections 15, 17 Asst. Years 1978-79, 1981-82

Sec. 17(2)(ii), Sec. 17(2)(iv), Sec. 17(3), Section 15, Section 192, Section 201

Andhra Pradesh H.C : Whether the grant of house building advances at a rate of interest below the market rate is a perquisite had been debated and the view of the Government itself was that the statutory provisions did not treat it as a perquisite

Avijit Das / April 21, 1998

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh P.V. Rajagopal & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 15, 17(2)(iii), 17(2)(iv), 17(3),

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 36(1)(iii), Sec. 37(1), Section 32, Section 37

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on assets transferred to it by the Government without a registered deed of conveyance ?

Avijit Das / April 20, 1998

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. Sections 32(1), 36(1)(iii), 37(1) Asst. Year 1978-79 R. Jayasimha Babu

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the interest free use of the company’s funds by the assessee- managing director, would not amount to benefit or amenity or perquisites within the meaning of s. 17(2)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, and accordingly, in deleting the sum of Rs. 67,004, Rs. 86,148 for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 & 1973-74 ?

Avijit Das / April 17, 1998

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. T.P.S.H. Selva Saroja (Decd) By Lrs Sections 2(22)(e), 17(2), 254(1) Asst. Years 1972-73, 1973-74,

Post pagination

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top