Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

November 2000

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 1,18,996 and Rs. 5,138 received by the assessee during the accounting years relevant to the asst. yr. 1968-69 and 1969-70, respectively, on account of his 50 per cent share in the jagir income are his agricultural income and therefore exempt from tax.

Avijit Das / November 21, 2000

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Satinder Singh Section 2(1A) Asst. Year 1968-69, 1969-70, Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, […]

Sec. 5(1)(iv), Section 7

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.

Avijit Das / November 20, 2000

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

Section 48, Section 55

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the provisions of ss. 48 and 55(2)

Avijit Das / November 20, 2000

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. K. Raja Gopala Rao Sections 48, 55(2) Asst. Year 1973-74, 1974-75 R. Jayasimha Babu

Section 119, Section 80J

Jammu & Kashmir H.C : The letter dt. 2nd Dec., 1974, from the CBDT addressed to the Vice President, Jamnu Forest Lessees’ Association constituted an instruction so as to be binding on the ITO

Avijit Das / November 17, 2000

High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir CIT vs. Abdul Ahad Najar Sections 80J, 119 Asst. Year 1975-76 Dr. B.P. Saraf,

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Jammu & Kashmir H.C : The order made by the ITO under s. 154 allowing thereunder the depreciation due in respect of the truck, is not an order to rectify a mistake apparent from the records and, is, therefore, unsustainable

Avijit Das / November 17, 2000

High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir CIT vs. Agya Wanti Sections 32(1), 34, 154 Asst. year 1975-76, 1976-77 Dr. B.P.

Sec. 13(1)(b), Section 11, Section 13

Jammu & Kashmir H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right that the trust was not entitled to claim exemption from tax under s. 11 of the IT Act for the income derived from the property held under the trust ?

Avijit Das / November 17, 2000

High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir Ghulam Mohidin Trust vs. CIT Sections 11, 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) Dr. B.P. Saraf, C.J. &

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.

Avijit Das / November 17, 2000

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,

Jammu & Kashmir H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the carry forward of loss determined on the basis of return filed in response to notice under s. 148 of the IT Act.

Avijit Das / November 17, 2000

High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir CIT vs. State Agro Development Corporation Section 147 Asst. year 1975-76 Dr. B.P. Saraf,

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.

Avijit Das / November 17, 2000

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,

Sec. 119(2)(a), Sec. 234A, Sec. 234B, Sec. 234C, Section 119, Section 234

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.

Avijit Das / November 17, 2000

High Court Of Madras P. Velu Chettiar vs. CCIT & Anr. Section 119(2)(a), 234A, 234B, 234C, Asst. year 1993-94 to

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 3 4 5 … 11 Next →

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

Scroll to Top