Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

February 2000

Income Tax Case Laws

Bombay H.C : Whether the TRO was right in refusing to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner under r. 11 of the Second Schedule to the IT Act, 1961, on the ground that the AO has declared the gift deed dt. 2nd Dec., 1986, as void under s. 281

Avijit Das / February 29, 2000

High Court Of Bombay Master Aditya Kumar Kedia vs. Tax Recovery Officer & Ors. Section Sch. II, Rule 11 S.H. […]

Sec. 2(24), Sec. 2(24)(iii)

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that CCA cannot come within the charging sections and/or within the meaning of income of a Government servant in accordance with s. 2(24) of the IT Act, 1961, read with the Fundamental Rules and cannot come within the ambit of meaning of total income as contained in s. 2(45) of the Act?

Avijit Das / February 29, 2000

Supreme Court Of India Karamchari Union, Agra vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 2(24)(iiia), 2(24)(iiib), 17(1), 17(3) D.P. Wadhwa

Sec. 44B, Section 44

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case : (i) the Tribunal is right in law in holding that unless the total income is assessed to tax, there can arise no liability under the provisions of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act. (ii) is the assessment under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act wrong and against law ?

Avijit Das / February 28, 2000

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Taiyo Gyogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Sections 5(2), 44B, 172, SURTAX 2(5), 4 Asst. Year 1979-80

Sec. 260A, Sec. 44AB, Section 260, Section 271B, Section 44

Bombay H.C : Whether the Department was entitled to levy penalty under s. 271B of the IT Act, 1961

Avijit Das / February 28, 2000

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Heros Publicity Services Sections 44AB, 260A, 271B S.H. Kapadia & A.P. Shah, JJ. IT

Section 3, Wealth Tax Act

Bombay H.C : Whether value of the property consisting of office premises at Maker Chambers III at Nariman Point was includible in the net wealth of the assessee

Avijit Das / February 28, 2000

High Court Of Bombay Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. CEMA (P) Ltd. Section WT 3 S.H. Kapadia & A.P. Shah,

Sec. 260A, Section 260, Section 5

Bombay H.C : The agricultural lands owned by the assessee was acquired by the Government in 1989 under the Land Acquisition Act.

Avijit Das / February 28, 2000

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Abdul Mannan Shah Mohammed Sections 5, 260A S.H. Kapadia & A.P. Shah, JJ. ITA

Sec. 158BC, Sec. 158BD, Section 158

Bombay H.C : Whether the undisclosed income of a partner can be treated as undisclosed income of the firm for the purposes of Chapter XIV-B of the IT Act, 1961.

Avijit Das / February 28, 2000

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Tirupati Oil Corporation Sections 158BC, 158BD S.H. Kapadia & A.P. Shah, JJ. IT Appeal

Sec. 269T, Section 271E

Bombay H.C : This appeal is directed against the decision of the Tribunal ordering deletion of the penalty of Rs. 4,13,000 imposed by the AO under s. 271E of the IT Act, 1961.

Avijit Das / February 28, 2000

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Eetachi Agencies Sections 269T, 271E S.H. Kapadia & A.P. Shah, JJ. ITA No. 231

Sec. 37(1), Sec. 37(3), Section 37

Bombay H.C : Whether the assessee has proved that the presentation articles did not possess advertisement value and, therefore, it was entitled to claim deduction in respect of costs of such articles ?

Avijit Das / February 28, 2000

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Gill & Co. (P) Ltd. Sections 37(1), 37(3) Asst. Year 1981-82 S.H. Kapadia &

Sec. 260A, Section 260

Bombay H.C : Whether proceedings under s. 148 could have been instituted when the return filed on 29th June, 1982, was pending assessment.

Avijit Das / February 28, 2000

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Rajendra G. Shah Sections 260A S.H. Kapadia & A.P. Shah, JJ. ITA No. 85

Post pagination

1 2 … 4 Next →

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

Scroll to Top