Month: October 2001

Delhi H.C : The petitioner in this petition filed as PIL prayed for direction against respondents to file current status report about the post-Voluntary Disclosure Income Scheme (VDIS) 1997, situation with regard to deductions and their foreign origin employees indicating whether after availing themselves of the provisions of the VDIS 1997, deductors have been deducting the requisite amount of tax from their employees’ salaries/perks and in case all or some of them have not done so what action has been taken or is proposed to be taken against them.

High Court Of Delhi Dr. B.L. Wadehra vs. Union Of India & Anr. Actg. C.J. & Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. CWP (PIL) No. 637 of 2000 31st October, 2001 Counsel Appeared Ashok Anand, for the Appellant : Nishikant Pandey, R.D. Jolly, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The petitioner in this petition filed as …

Madras H.C : the Tribunal is right in law in holding that cl. (b) of sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be invoked in this case and the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80HHC of the Act in respect of the entire export net profits

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Rathore Brothers Section 80HHC(3)(b) R. Jayasimha Babu & A.K. Rajan, JJ. Tax Case No. 829 of 1995 31st October 2001 Counsel Appeared Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue : V.S. Jayakumar, for the Assessee JUDGMENT R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. : The question that is referred in this case is, whether, …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that cl. (b) of sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961, cannot be invoked in this case and the assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80HHC of the Act in respect of the entire export net profits ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Rathore Brothers Section 80HHC (3)(b) R. Jayasimha Babu & A.K. Rajan, JJ. Tax Case No. 829 of 1995 31st October 2001 Counsel Appeared Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue : V.S. Jayakumar, for the Assessee JUDGMENT R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. : The question that is referred in this case is, …

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in granting deduction of the amounts paid by way of interest referable to the amounts which the assessee had lent to various parties as mentioned in the Tribunal’s order ?

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. V.I. Baby & Co. Section 36(1)(iii) Asst. Year 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84 P.K. Balasubramanyan & C.N. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. IT Ref. Nos. 41 to 43 of 1998 31st October, 2001 Counsel Appeared P.K.R. Menon, for the Revenue : O.V. Radhakrishan, for the Assessee JUDGMENT C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. : These IT …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Central Government subsidy is not deductible from the money cost to the assessee of its plant, machinery and building while computing the original cost thereof under s. 43 (1) of IT Act, 1961, for the purpose of allowing depreciation or investment allowance, etc.

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Surendra Textiles Sections 43(1), 80HH Asst. Year 1984-85, 1985-86 N.N. Mathur & O.P. Bishnoi, JJ. IT Ref. No. 3 of 1992 30th October, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Petitioner : None, for the Respondents JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, has referred the following …

Bombay H.C : Shri Mehta by pointing out a letter written to the STO, Enforcement Branch, Mazgaon, Bombay, dt. 10th Oct., 1997, submitted that the petitioners repeatedly sought for the production of the documents seized by the Sales-tax Department in the raid but his request was not granted.

High Court Of Bombay Simplex Enterprises & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Section 143, 264, Art. 226 J.G. Chitre & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 692 of 2001 24th October, 2001 Counsel Appeared : P.B. Andhyarujina i/b Arun H. Mehta, for the Petitioners : R.V. Desai, for the Respondent No. 1 : R.M. …

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that amount of Rs.1,77,052 arising from the remission in the unsecured liability, is not taxable in the hands of the assessee?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Chetan Chemicals (P) Ltd. Sections 28(iv), 41(1) Asst. Year 1982-83 M.S. Shah & D.A. Mehta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 148 of 1988 23rd October, 2001 Counsel Appeared Akil Kureshi with Manish R. Bhatt, for the Petitioner : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.A. Mehta, J. : The Tribunal has referred …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : there was a delay of seven months in filing the return after the service of the notice under s. 148 of the Act. Was the notice actually served as alleged?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Income Tax Officer vs. Mukesh Kumar Section 276CC Asst. Year 1976-77 Jawahar Lal Gupta & Ashutosh Mohunta, JJ. Crl. Misc. No. 117 of 2001 22nd October, 2001 Counsel Appeared R.P. Sawhney with Ms. Jai Shree Thakur, for the Petitioner JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. : The ITO, Jalandhar, filed a …

Gujarat H.C : Whether in law and on facts when the assessee received possession of the flat in October, 1981 and sold the same on 4th Dec., 1982, the assessee is entitled to benefit of s. 80T of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah Sections 2(29B), 27(iii), 27(iiia), 80T Asst. Year 1983-84 M.S. Shah & D.A. Mehta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 44 of 1988 17th October, 2001 Counsel Appeared Akil Kureshi with Manish R. Bhatt, for the Petitioner : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT M.S. SHAH, J. : In this reference …
Malcare WordPress Security