Month: November 2000

Madras H.C : The assessee, after having terminated the lease in favour of the lessee, filed a suit for possession and also damages for use and occupation of the property after termination of the lease.

High Court Of Madras S. Kempadevamma vs. CIT Section 4 R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ. Tax Case Nos. 507 & 508 of 1986 27th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for M/s Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan & Ramamani, for the Assessee : C.V. Rajan, for the Revenue JUDGMENT R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J.: The assessee, …

Gujarat H.C : The petitioner, by way of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the notice dt. 29th Aug., 2000, issued by the Jt. CIT, Rajkot (respondent) under the provisions of s. 158BC r/w. s. 158BD of the IT Act, 1961.

High Court Of Gujarat Rushil Industries Ltd. vs. Harsh Prakash Sections 158B, 158BC, 158BD D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. & M.S. Shah, J. Special Civil Appln. No. 10396 of 2000 27th December, 2000 Counsel Appeared S.N. Soparkar, for the Petitioner : Mihir Joshi for Manish R. Bhatt, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.M. Dharmadhikari, C.J. : After hearing the …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) to the effect that the amount of Rs. 57,85,000 is in the nature of general reserve and is not hit by the exceptions contained in the Explanation to r. 1 of the Second Schedule?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Hansa Agencies (P) Ltd. Section 256(2) G.S. Singhvi & K.S. Kumaran, JJ. ITC No. 75 of 1993 24th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared R.P. Sawhney, Rajesh Bindal, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J. : This is a petition under s. 256(2) of the …

Madras H.C : The first question concerns the extent to which the assessee can claim the benefit of s. 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act, which as it stood during the assessment year provided for exemption of one house or part of a house belonging to the assessee, and exclusively used by him for residential purpose.

High Court Of Madras Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. V.T. Somasundaram L/H Of V.S.Thiagaraja Mudaliar Sections WT 5(1)(iv), WT 7 Asst. Year 1968-69, 1970-71 R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ. Tax Case Nos. 444 to 446 of 1983 20th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared O. Anand Ram, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT …

Madras H.C : The submission of the petitioner is that notice having been issued as provided for in r. 119(3), the interest under s. 220(2) cannot be taken note of for the purpose of determination of the amount payable by the petitioner under the Samadhan Scheme.

High Court Of Madras P. Ramanathan vs. Income Tax Officer Sections 220(2), 1998 FA(No. 2) 87(m) Asst. Year 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 R. Jayasimha Babu, J. Writ Petn. Nos. 5349 to 5351 of 1999 & Writ Misc. Petn. Nos. 7826 to 7831 of 1999 17th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared V. Balachandran, for the Petitioner : Mrs. Chitra …

Madras H.C : The interest under s. 220(2) cannot be taken note of for the purpose of determination of the amount payable by the petitioner under the Samadhan Scheme. That rule was in force during the assessment years in question namely, 1971-72 to 1973-74.

High Court Of Madras P. Ramanathan vs. Income Tax Officer Sections 220(2), 1998 FA(No. 2) 87(m) Asst. Year 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 R. Jayasimha Babu, J. Writ Petn. Nos. 5349 to 5351 of 1999 & Writ Misc. Petn. Nos. 7826 to 7831 of 1999 17th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared V. Balachandran, for the Petitioner : Mrs. Chitra …

Madras H.C : Condition No. 5 in the circular issued by the CBDT [F.No. 400/234/95-IT(B) dt. 23rd May, 1996— Ed.] which empowers the Chief CITs and Directors General (Investigation) to reduce or waive penal interest for late submission of return of income, non-payment or inadequate payment of advance tax.

High Court Of Madras P. Velu Chettiar vs. CCIT & Anr. Section 119(2)(a), 234A, 234B, 234C, Asst. year 1993-94 to 1996-97 R. Jayasimha Babu, J. Writ Petn. No. 3799 of 1999 & Writ Misc. Petn. No. 5432 of 1999 17th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared R. Janakiraman, for the Petitioner : Mrs. Chitra Venkatraman, for the Respondents …

S.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the surplus realised on sale of shares is a capital gain exempt under s. 47(iv) of the Act.

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Leena Investment (P) Ltd. Sections 256(2) S.P. Bharucha, D.P. Mohapatra & S.N. Phukan, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 3285 of 1998 16th November, 2000 ORDER BY THE COURT : The High Court declined to call for a reference of the following question proposed by the Revenue : “Whether the Tribunal is …

Madras H.C : The penalty paid under r. 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and the amount paid in lieu of confiscation of goods, could be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the assessee

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Rane Brake Linings Ltd. Sections 37(1) R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ. T.C. No. 902 of 1988 16th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue : P.P.S. Janardhana Raja, for the Respondent ORDER R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. : The question referred to us is as to …
Malcare WordPress Security