Month: August 2002

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the income earned from the firm belonged to Rangraj Keshrimal Family Trust and thereby deleting the said income from the income of the assessee?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Rangraj Keshumal Sections 4 A.R. Dave & D. A. Mehta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 186 of 1990 29th August, 2002 Counsel Appeared Manish R. Bhatt, for the Petitioner : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT A.R. Dave, J. : At the instance of the Revenue, the following question of law, arising …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the Tribunal was right .in treating sanitary fittings as plant installed in the cinema hall on the analogy of the Supreme Court’s decision in CIT vs. Taj Mahal Hotel 1973 CTR (SC) 480 : (1971) 82 ITR 44 (SC)

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Jodhana Real Estate Development Co. (P) Ltd. Sections 32, 43(3) Asst. Year 1986-87 N.N. Mathur & H.R. Panwar, JJ. IT Ref. No. 37 of 1997 29th August, 2002 Counsel Appeared Sandeep Bhandawat, for the Revenue : Rajendra Mehta, for the Assessee JUDGMENT N.N. Mathur, J. : The instant reference under …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the salary income having already been assessed in the hands of the assessee’s wife Smt. Madhu Soni under s. 64(1)(ii) could not again be assessed in the hands of the assessee ?

High Court Of Delhi ITO vs. Vinod Kumar Soni Section 4 Asst. Year 1978-79 D.K. Jain & Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, JJ. IT Ref. No. 547 of 1983 29th August, 2002 JUDGMENT D.K. JAIN, J. : At the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-E (for short ‘the Tribunal’) has referred under s. 256(1) …

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee-club was not a charitable institution within the meaning of s. 2(15) of the IT Act, 1961.? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income of the assessee was entitled to exemption either under s. 11 of the IT Act, 1961 r/w s. 2(15) of the IT Act, or under the principle of mutuality.?

High Court Of Bombay Deccan Gymkhana (Oldest Trust) vs. CIT Sections 2(15), 11 Asst. Year 1973-74, 1974-75, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1979-80 S.H. Kappadia & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Ref. No. 76 of 1985 29th August, 2002 Counsel Appeared S.N. Inamdar, for the Applicants : R.V. Desai with Mrs. S.V. Bharucha, for the Respondent JUDGMENT S.H. KAPADIA, …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether Tribunal was justified in restoring the view taken by the ITO regarding disallowance of the expenses accrued on account of agreement with the State Government regarding restoration of the land in its original shape.

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT & ANR. Sections 37(1) Asst. Year 1990-91, 1991-92 Y.R. Meena & Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ. IT Appeal No. 33 of 2001 29th August, 2002 Counsel Appeared T.C. Jain, for the Appellnat : Anuroop Singhi, for the Respondents JUDGMENT BY THE COURT …

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the penalty of Rs. 43,000 under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Gujarat Usha Fertilizers vs. CIT Sections 271(1)(c), Expln. Asst. Year 1975-76 A.R. Dave & D.A. Mehta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 42 of 1987 29th August, 2002 Counsel Appeared S.N. Divatia, for the Petitioner : B.B. Nayak for Manish R. Bhatt, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.A. Mehta, J. : The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ‘A’ …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the terminal allowance under s. 32(1)(iii) of the IT Act in respect of the demolished building is Rs. 1,60,866 and not Rs. 1,10,867 as computed by the ITO ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Ashoka Betelnut Co. (P) Ltd. Sections 32(1)(iii) Asst. Year 1983-84 R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ. Tax Case No. 389 of 1995 28th August, 2002 Counsel Appeared T. Ravikumar, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. : The assessment year is 1983-84. …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in applying Rajasthan PWD rates for working out the cost of construction of house property for income-tax purpose, instead of CPWD rates?

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. Dinesh Talwar Sections 69B Asst. Year 1990-91 Y.R. Meena & Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ. IT Ref. No. 1 of 1999 28th August, 2002 Counsel Appeared Anuroop Singhi for J.K. Singhi, for the Revenue : A. Kasliwal, for the Assessee JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : On an application …

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the rental income from the Bank of Baroda was taxable under the head “business income” or “income from other sources” ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Amora Chemicals (P) Ltd. Sections 28(i), 36(1)(iii) Asst. Year 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82 A.R. Dave & D.A. Mehta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 79 of 1988 28th August, 2002 Counsel Appeared B.B. Naik, for the Petitioner : R.K. Patel, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.A. MEHTA, J. : This is a reference at …
Malcare WordPress Security