Month: December 2000

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the ITO refusing to grant registration to the firm of Kalu Ram & Co. ?

High Court Of Delhi Kalu Ram & Co. (HUF) vs. CIT Sections 4, 185 Asst. year 1972-73 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. Nos. 112 & 113 of 1980 21st December, 2000 Counsel Appeared R.P. Bansal & Ms. Bharati Pawar, for the Applicant : R.C. Pandey, Ajay Jha, & Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in cancelling the penalties levied by the IAC on 31st July, 1976, against the assessee for the asst. yrs. 1972-73 and 1973-74 under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, as without jurisdiction?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Bishamber Dayal & Co. Sections 271(1)(c), 274(2) Asst. Year 1972-73, 1973-74 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. Nos. 341 & 342 of 1980 8th December, 2000 Counsel Appeared R.C. Pandey with Ajay Jha & Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, for the Revenue : S.K. Aggarwal, for the Assessee …

Jammu & Kashmir H.C : This is an appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) against the order of the Tribunal dt. 31st Aug., 1999, by which the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the proper gross profit rate to be applied after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the assessee as well as the AO and to pass a fresh order.

High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir Nek Ram Sharma & Co. vs. Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Sections 260A B.P. Saraf, C.J. & G.D. Sharma, J. Original Writ Petn. (IT) No. 823 of 2000 7th December, 2000 Counsel Appeared Sindhu Sharma, for the Applicant JUDGMENT Dr. B.P. SARAF, C.J. : This is an appeal under s. 260A of …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,194, Rs. 65,000 and Rs. 62,000 levied by the IAC under s. 271(1) (c) for the asst. yrs. 1962-63, 1964-65 and 1965-66 ?

High Court Of Delhi Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Motorlite Mfg. Co. Sections 271(1)(c) Asst. year 1962-63, 1964-65, 1965-66 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. Nos. 264 to 266 of 1979 5th December, 2000 Counsel Appeared Sanjiv Khanna & Ajay Jha, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in cancelling the penalty of Rs. 4,194, Rs. 65,000 and Rs. 62,000 levied by the IAC under s. 271(1) (c) for the asst. yrs. 1962-63, 1964-65 and 1965-66 ?

High Court Of Delhi Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Motorlite Mfg. Co. Sections 271(1)(c) Asst. year 1962-63, 1964-65, 1965-66 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. Nos. 264 to 266 of 1979 5th December, 2000 Counsel Appeared Sanjiv Khanna & Ajay Jha, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, …
Malcare WordPress Security