Month: March 2001

Madras H.C : the aforesaid decisions and discussion that simply because an order has been passed by the authority waiving the penalty, the proceedings pending against the petitioner cannot be closed.

High Court Of Madras Sree Padmalaya Movies & Ors. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Sections 276C, 277, 278B, 279(1A), IPC 120B, IPC 193, IPC 196, IPC 420, IPC 511 Asst. Year 1982-83 A. Ramamurthi, J. Crl.R.P. No. 171 of 1999 & Crl.M.P. No. 1613 of 1999 23rd March, 2001 Counsel Appeared P.N. Pavithran, for the …

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the capital gain arising on the sale of agricultural land situated in the municipal limits of Pathankot is not taxable under the IT Act, 1961?

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. M.L. Mahajan Sections 2(14)(iii), 45(1) S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ. Transferred Case Nos. 19 to 24 of 1990 21st March, 2001 Counsel Appeared T.L.V. Iyer with Rajiv Nanda, Ajay Sharma, B.V. Balram Das & P. Permeshwaran, for the Revenue : Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, for the Assessee …

Rajasthan H.C : These reference applications have been filed under s. 256(2) of the IT Act against the orders dt. 29th Nov., 1994, passed by the Tribunal, Jaipur, in RA No. 202/Jp/1994 arising out of STA No. 4/Jp/1990 relating to the asst. yr. 1986-87 and RA No. 203/Jp/1994 arising out of STA No. 5/Jp/1990 relating to the asst. yr. 1987-88.

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1986-87, 1987-88 Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, C.J. & A.K. Parihar, J. IT Ref. Appln. Nos. 4 & 5 of 1998 20th March, 2001 Counsel Appeared R.K. Agrawal, for the Petitioner : P.K. Kasliwal, for the Respondent ORDER Dr. …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : The order in this petition shall also govern the disposal of writ petn. Nos. 351 of 2001 (Ram Kishan vs. ITO), 363 of 2001 (Dabburam Gupta vs. ITO) and 354 of 2001 (Smt. Sangeeta Gupta vs. ITO).

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh OM Prakash Gupta & Ors. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. Sections 281B S.S. Jha, J. Writ Petn. Nos. 351 to 354 of 2001 20th March, 2001 Counsel AppearedB.L. Nema with A.M. Naik, for the Petitioners : R.D. Jain with Sangam Jain, for the Respondents JUDGMENT S.S. JHA, J. : The …

Rajasthan H.C : the assessee challenges the authorisation issued by the CIT on 20th Jan., 1992, to include the name of the petitioner who was then an accountant engaged in Jodhpur Woollen Mills in the order under s. 279(1) for the asst. yr. 1982-83

High Court Of Rajasthan S.G. Kale vs. Union Of India Sections 201, 276B, 278AA & 279(1), Asst. year 1982-83 Rajesh Balia, J. Civil Writ Petn. No. 232 of 1995 19th March, 2001 Counsel Appeared Vineet Kothari, for the Petitioner : Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Respondents JUDGMENT RAJESH BALIA, J. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. …

Gujarat H.C : Considering the facts and circumstances of the case narrated by the Tribunal in para 7 of the judgment and the law explained in paras 8 and 8.1 [Rohini Builders vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 76 TTJ (Ahd) 521—Ed.], we find no substance in the appeal.

High Court Of Gujarat DCIT vs. Rohini Builders Section 260A Asst. year 1989-90 B.C. Patel & D.A. Mehta, JJ. Tax Appeal No. 65 of 2001 19th March, 2001 Counsel Appeared : Manish R. Bhatt, for the Appellant : Ketan H. Shah, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : Considering the facts and circumstances of the …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the hotel business is an industrial undertaking and therefore the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P)Ltd. Section 32A Asst. years 1986-87, 1987-88 Rajesh Balia & Sunil Kumar Garg, JJ. D.B. IT Ref. No. 15 of 1996 16th March, 2001 Counsel AppearedL.M. Lodha, for the Petitioner : R. Mehta, for the Respondent JUDGMENT RAJESH BALIA, J. : This is a reference …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : This is an appeal preferred by the assessee, with respect to asst. yr. 1990-91 against order passed by Tribunal. Income of Rs. 1,29,607 was shown by the assessee/appellant whereas the Income-tax Officer (for short the ‘ITO’) assessed his income at Rs. 3,37,990.

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Gyan Chand Anil Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer Sections 68, 260A Asst. Year 1990-91 Bhawani Singh, C.J. & Arun Mishra, J. IT Appeal No. 82 of 1999 14th March, 2001 Counsel Appeared B.L. Nema with Kum. S. Agrawal, for the Appellant : Rohit Arya, for the Respondent JUDGMENT ARUN MISHRA, J. …
Malcare WordPress Security