Month: November 2001

Himachal Pradesh H.C : These petitions have been filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside a communication dt. 25th Oct., 2000 (annexure PK), and by directing the respondent-authorities to issue a certificate compounding the cases pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, and prohibiting them from prosecuting the petitioner for any offence for the asst. yrs. 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 and 1982-83.

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh Bakshi Ram Dogra vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. Section 276C Asst. Year 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 C.K. Thakker, C.J. & M.R. Verma, J. Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 291 to 294 of 2001 29th November, 2001 Counsel Appeared D.D. Sood with Ankush Dass, for the Petitioner : Inder Singh with …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was engaged in the business of production of limestone and was hence entitled to deduction under s. 80-I of the Act ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. Sections 32(1), 35(2)(iv), 80-I Asst. Year 1972-73 S.B. Sinha, C.J. & A.K. Sikri, J. IT Ref. No. 25 of 1980 29th November, 2001 Counsel Appeared R.C. Pandey and Ajay Jha, for the Petitioner : Ms. Radha Rangaswamy, for the Respondent JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, C.J. : At the …

S.C : The assessee has received unaccounted receipts, was justified in law in holding that the AO has to discharge the onus in respect of on-money by showing that the assessee has invested Rs. 1,58,59,400 out of such receipts whereas the claim of the assessee for extra expenditure was found to be incorrect

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation S.P. Bharucha, C.J.; Shivaraj V. Patil & Arijit Pasayat, JJ. Section 256(2) Civil Appeal No. 8176 of 2001 29th November, 2001 Counsel Appeared Mukul Rohtagi with Ms. Neera Gupta & B.V. Balaram Das, for the Appellant : H.A. Raichura, Ms. S.H. Raichura & Shailendra Singh, for the Respondent …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the grants received from the Government by the assessee-company, which is a 100 per cent Government company, to enable the company to function, was a capital or revenue receipt ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Steel Authority Of India Ltd. Section 4 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & A.K. Sikri, J. IT Ref. No. 176 of 1979 29th November, 2001 Counsel Appeared R.C. Pandey & Ajay Jha, for the Petitioner JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The reference has been made by the Tribunal to this Court for …

Calcutta H.C : The application was moved before this Hon’ble Court on 26th Sept., 1994, when His Lordship Ruma Pal, J. was pleased to direct that the ITO will be at liberty to proceed with the hearing of the notice under s. 148

High Court Of Calcutta Geo Miller & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors. Sections 147, 148 Asst. Year 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90 Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Matter No. 2489 of 1994 28th November, 2001 JUDGMENT PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. : This is an application inter alia challenging the notices issued under s. 148 of the …

Calcutta H.C : The petitioner challenging the orders dt. 20th Feb., 1996, and 30th July, 1996, passed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 refusing to waive the penalty under s. 271(1) (c)(iii)

High Court Of Calcutta Satish Kapoor vs. CIT & Ors. Sections 273A, Art. 226 Asst. Year 1984-85, 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Writ Petn. No. 428 of 1997 28th November, 2001 JUDGMENT PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. : This is an application filed by the petitioner challenging the orders dt. 20th Feb., 1996, and …

Calcutta H.C : Where a claim or an objection is preferred, the party against whom an order is made may institute a suit in a civil Court, to establish the right which he claims the property in dispute; but, subject to the result of such suit (if any), the order of the TRO shall be conclusive

High Court Of Calcutta Munir Ahmed & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 222, 226(3), SCH. II RULE 11, SCH. II RULE 16, SCH. II, RULE 48 Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Writ Petn. No. 1024 of 2000 28th November, 2001 Counsel Appeared : Pal, for the Appellant : Som, for the Respondents JUDGMENT PINAKI …

Madras H.C : The Tribunal has accepted the assessee’s case that the expenditure incurred on the education of the son of the director abroad should be treated as business expenditure, reversing the view of the CIT(A) and the assessing authority.

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. R.K.K.R. Steels (P) Ltd. Sections 37(1) Asst. Year 1977-78 R. Jayasimha Babu & C. Nagappan, JJ. Tax Case No. 217 of 1988 26th November, 2001 Counsel Appeared Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT R. Jayasimha Babu, J. : The Tribunal has accepted the assessee’s …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the liabilities in dispute relating to the purchase of cotton shown in the notes to the balance-sheet should also be deducted in determining the value of shares ?

High Court Of Madras Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs. T.R. Varadarajan Sections WT 7 Asst. Year 1980-81 R. Jayasimha Babu & C. Nagappan, JJ. TC Nos. 1107 & 1108 of 1990 26th November, 2001 Counsel Appeared Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue : None appeared, for the Assessee JUDGMENT R. JAYASIMHA BABU J. : The questions referred, …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the WTO was right in invoking s. 35 of the WT Act and rectifying and withdrawing the deduction of estate duty liability originally allowed from the net wealth of the assessee-HUF ?

High Court Of Madras Dr. Rajah Sir M.A. Muthiah Chettiar Of Chettinad (HUF) vs. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Sections WT 2(m), 35 Asst. Year 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79 R. Jayasimha Babu & C. Nagappan, JJ. Tax Case Nos. 1190 to 1198 of 1988 26th November, 2001 Counsel Appeared P.P.S. Janardhana Raja, …
Malcare WordPress Security