Month: February 2001

Madras H.C : The petitioners are three of the four sons of one Abdul Rasheed, who was a partner in the firm on which an assessment was made for the year 1962-63, the year preceding the dissolution of the firm.

High Court Of Madras V.M. Jameel Ahmed & Ors. vs. ITO Section 189(3) Asst. Year 1962-63 R. Jayasimha Babu, J. Writ Petn. Nos. 3445, 3446 & 3448 of 1996 27th February, 2001 Counsel Appeared : Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for the Petitioners : T. Ravikumar, for the Respondent JUDGMENT R. Jayasimha Babu, J. : The petitioners are …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the acceptance of the return under s. 16(1) is no order which could enable the CWT to assume revisionary jurisdiction for issue of notice under s. 25(2) of the WT Act ?

High Court Of Rajasthan Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Smt. Sita Devi Sections WT 2(ob), WT 16, WT 16A, WT 25(2), WT RULE 2 Asst. Year 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 Rajesh Balia & Sunil Kumar Garg, JJ. WT Ref. No. 103 of 1995 26th February, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Revenue …

Bombay H.C : Petitioners who are associations of tax practitioners, chartered accountants and architects challenge the constitutional validity of s. 116 of the Finance Act (No. 2) Act, 1998.

High Court Of Bombay All India Federation Of Tax Practitioners & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Section :  Arts. 14, 19(1)(g), 248 & Sch. VII, List I, Entry 97 & List II, Entry 60, FA 116 A.P. Shah & S.J. Vazifdar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 142 of 1999 22nd February, 2001 Counsel Appeared Janak …

Madras H.C : there is no condition in s. 3(4) of the IT Act, 1961, as it stood during the asst. yr. 1981-82 that consent of the ITO should be sought before effecting change in the previous year

High Court Of Madras Vazirbun Trading Co. vs. CIT Section 3(4) Asst. Year 1981-82 R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ. Tax Case No. 995 of 1990 21st February, 2001 Counsel Appeared P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, for the Assessee : Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue JUDGMENT R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. : Counsel contends that there is …

Madras H.C : the assessee is mainly engaged in the business of construction, manufacture or production of high tension transmission lines which are articles not specified in the Eleventh Schedule to the IT Act, 1961

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Best And Crompton Engineering Ltd. Sections 32A, Sch. XI Asst. Year 1978-79 R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ. Tax Case No. 1336 of 1990 21st February, 2001 Counsel Appeared T.V. Ravikumar, for the Revenue JUDGMENT R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. : The Tribunal has held that the assessee is mainly …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the decision of the learned CIT(A), directing the AO to allow deduction under s. 32AB ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Metalising Equipment Co. (P) Ltd. Sections 32AB, 143(1B), 256(2) Asst. year 1989-90 Rajesh Balia & Sunil Kumar Garg, JJ. DB IT Case No. 129 of 1998 20th February, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sundeep Bhandawat, for the Petitioner : Rajendra Mehta, for the Respondent JUDGMENT RAJESH BALIA, J. : Heard learned counsel …

Patna H.C : The petitioner V.K. Agrawal apparently has not received the full monetary benefits of the prize money in facilitating intelligence reports on assessees with the IT Department.

High Court Of Patna V.K. Agrawal vs. Union Of India Section Art. 226 Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J. & Shashank KR. Singh, J. C.W.J.C. No. 8141 of 2000 15th February, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sunil Kumar Singh, for the Petitioner : S.K. Sharan, for the Respondent ORDER BY THE COURT : The petitioner V.K. Agrawal apparently has not …
Malcare WordPress Security