Month: February 2000

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no interest can be charged under s. 217(1) or s. 217(1A) as the assessee has filed the estimates and has paid tax accordingly, by ignoring the fact that the assessee had filed the estimate under s. 209A(1) whereas the AO charged interest under s. 217(1A) for non-filing of estimates under s. 209A(4) of the IT Act ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Dhanraj Mundra Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1988-89 Rajesh Balia & Mohd. Yamin, JJ. D.B. IT Ref. No. 63 of 1999 23rd February, 2000 Counsel Appeared Sundeep Bhandawat, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT …

Rajasthan H.C : the same is not applicable to the case of assessee inasmuch as the new provisions of s. 161(1A) were inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 1985, much after the delivery of the judgment by the Hon’ble apex Court and further the facts and circumstances of that case are distinguishable from the case of the assessee

High Court Of Rajasthan Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Ajay Vijay Traders Sections 161(1A), 260A Asst. year 1997-98 B.J. Shethna & Prakash Tatia, JJ. DB IT Appeal Nos. 7 & 18 of 1999 22nd February, 2000 Counsel Appeared Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Appellant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The appellant …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the claim of the assessee-firm for deduction on account of depreciation in respect of vehicles which were registered in the name of one or more partners of the firm and used by the firm for its business ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Mohd. Bux Shokat Ali (No. 1) Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1988-89 Rajesh Balia & Mohd. Yamin, JJ. D.B. IT Ref. Appln. No. 31 of 1998 22nd February, 2000 Counsel Appeared : Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Applicant JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears …

Rajasthan H.C : the same is not applicable to the case of assessee inasmuch as the new provisions of s. 161(1A) were inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 1985, much after the delivery of the judgment by the Hon’ble apex Court and further the facts and circumstances of that case are distinguishable from the case of the assessee ?

High Court Of Rajasthan Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Ajay Vijay Traders Sections 161(1A), 260A Asst. year 1997-98 B.J. Shethna & Prakash Tatia, JJ. DB IT Appeal Nos. 7 & 18 of 1999 22nd February, 2000 Counsel Appeared Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Appellant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The appellant …

Madras H.C : The petition is filed by the ITO to compound the offence. The respondent/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 under s. 276CC(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). The respondent/accused preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 46 of 1996.

High Court Of Madras Income Tax Officer vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan Sections 276CC(i), 279(2) V. Bakthavatsalu, J. Criminal Misc. Petn to. 984 of 2000 & Criminal Ref. Case No. 588 of 1996 11th February, 2000 Counsel Appeared T. Sivanathan, for the Petitioner ORDER V. BAKTHAVATSALU, J. : The petition is filed by the ITO to compound …

Madras H.C : The respondent/accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 under s. 276CC(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

High Court Of Madras Income Tax Officer vs. Dr. K. Jagadeesan Sections 276CC(i), 279(2) V. Bakthavatsalu, J. Criminal Misc. Petn to. 984 of 2000 & Criminal Ref. Case No. 588 of 1996 11th February,2000 Counsel Appeared T. Sivanathan, for the Petitioner ORDER V. BAKTHAVATSALU, J. : The petition is filed by the ITO to compound the …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed under s. 185(1) (b) of the IT Act, 1961, refusing to grant registration to the firm for the asst. yr. 1981-82, when there was a change in the constitution of firm ?

High Court Of Allahabad Plywood Products vs. CIT Sections 185(1)(b), 185(2), 187(2), 256(2) Asst. Year 1981-82, 1984-85, 1985-86 M.C. Agarwal & S. Rafat Alam, JJ. IT Appln. Nos. 142 of 1996 and 3 & 4 of 2000 7th February, 2000 Counsel Appeared V.K. Rastogi, for the Applicant : Prakash Krishna, for the Respondent JUDGMENT M.C. AGARWAL, …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order passed under s. 185(1) (b) of the IT Act, 1961, refusing to grant registration to the firm for the asst. yr. 1981-82, when there was a change in the constitution of firm ?

High Court Of Allahabad Plywood Products vs. CIT Sections 185(1)(b), 185(2), 187(2), 256(2) Asst. Year 1981-82, 1984-85, 1985-86 M.C. Agarwal & S. Rafat Alam, JJ. IT Appln. Nos. 142 of 1996 and 3 & 4 of 2000 7th February, 2000 Counsel Appeared V.K. Rastogi, for the Applicant : Prakash Krishna, for the Respondent JUDGMENT M.C. AGARWAL, …
Malcare WordPress Security