Month: August 2001

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that reopening of the case for the year under consideration was not valid, nor justified ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Bhanwarlal Choudhary Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1987-88 N.N. Mathur & Harbans Lal, JJ. IT Ref. No. 15 of 1998 30th August, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Petitioner : Ajay Kothari, for the Respondent JUDGMENT N.N. MATHUR, J. : This application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act has …

Calcutta H.C : Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the loss claimed by the assessee was an artificial one or an attempt to reduce tax liability and the Tribunal’s suppositions that the affairs of the assessee were not real or genuine or were sham and make believe or a colourable device or that the assessee had resorted to any dubious method or subterfuge, are based on any material and whether such conclusion is otherwise unreasonable and perverse ?

High Court Of Calcutta Duncans Industries Ltd. vs. CIT Section 28(i) Asst. Year 1991-92 Y.R. Meena & Arun Kumar Mitra, JJ. IT Appeal No. 446 of 2000 29th August, 2001 Counsel Appeared Dr. Pal, for the Assessee : Mallick, for the Revenue JUDGMENT Y.R. MEENA, J.: This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of …

AAR : Whether the applicant is liable to tax on the amount received from Linde Process Technologies India Ltd. towards consideration for the sale of engineering, drawings and designs received under Purchase Order No. 19004, dt. 11th Dec., 1998, of Linde Process Technologies India Ltd.?

Authority For Advance Rulings Pro-Quip Corporation, In Re Sections 90, DTAA Art. 5, DTAA Art. 12 Suhas C. Sen, J., Chairman & Dr. (Mrs.) Mohini Bhussry, Member AAR No. 475 of 1999 29th August, 2001 Counsel Appeared Milin Mehta & Nishith Gandhi, for the Applicant Ruling SUHAS C. SEN, J. : The following two questions have …

Delhi H.C : This is an appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961. For the asst. yr. 1994-95, as against the returned income of Rs. 4,08,950, assessment was completed on a total income of Rs. 8,72,302. Proceedings under s. 271(1)(c)

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Cami Advertising & Marketing (P)Ltd. Sections 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1994-95 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Appeal No. 75 of 2001 29th August, 2001 Counsel Appeared R.C. Pandey with Ms. Premlata Bansal, for the Appellant : K.R. Manjani, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : This is …

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred by the company in connection with amalgamation proceedings were not deductible while computing the total income ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Mihir Textiles Ltd. Sections 37(1), 37(5), 40(c), 40A(5) Asst. Year 1980-81, 1981-82 M.S. Shah & D.A. Mehta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 93 of 1987 28th August, 2001 Counsel Appeared Manish R. Bhatt, for the Petitioner : J.P. Shah & Manish J. Shah, for the Respondent JUDGMENT M.S. SHAH, J. : …

S.C : the Special Leave Petition against the judgment followed by the High Court in the order under appeal was dismissed as also Special Leave Petitions against the judgments of various High Courts taking a similar view.

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Ambur Co-Op. Sugar Mills Ltd. Section 261 S.P. Bharucha, C.J.; Y.K. Sabharwal & Ashok Bhan, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 2499 of 1998 28th August, 2001 Appeal (SC)—Special Leave Petition—Dismissal in similar cases—Special Leave Petitions against Counsel Appeared : M.L. Verma with Ms. Sushma Suri, Rajiv Tyagi & B.V.B. Das, for …

Gujarat H.C : Whether the assessee is entitled to interest under s. 244(1A) in respect of interest payments under ss. 215, 217 and 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Gujarat State Warehousing Corporation Sections 214, 244(1A) Asst. Year 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1977-78, 1978-79 M.S. Shah & D.A. Mehta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 83 of 1987 28th August, 2001 Counsel Appeared B.B. Naik with Manish R. Bhatt, for the Petitioner : Manish J. Shah, for J.P. Shah, for the Respondent …
Malcare WordPress Security