Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

August 2002

Rajasthan H.C : The assessee-petitioner has challenged initiation of reassessment proceedings against it for the asst. yrs. 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86 by issuing notices under s. 147/148

Avijit Das / August 28, 2002

High Court Of Rajasthan Marudhar Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT Sections 147 Asst. Year 1981-82, 1983-84, 1985-86 Rajesh Balia, J. […]

Sec. 37(2A), Section 32, Section 32A

Madras H.C : Three questions at the instance of the Revenue and one at the instance of the assessee arising from the order of the Tribunal on the appeals preferred by the assessee, as also, by the Revenue which appeals arose out of the order of the CIT(A) in appeal with regard to the assessment made on the assessee for the asst. yr. 1985-86 are now before us.

Avijit Das / August 28, 2002

High Court Of Madras Ennore Foundries Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 32A, 37(2A), Expln., 37(3), 40(c), 43A, RULE 6D Asst. Year

Section 23, Section 56

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the receipts from service charges are liable to be assessed as income from “other sources” and not income from house property ?

Avijit Das / August 28, 2002

High Court Of Madras Tarapore & Co. vs. CIT Sections 23, 56 R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ.

Section 147, Section 148, Section 80HHC

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal right in holding that the reopening of the assessment is valid, in a case where the assessment has been reopened under s. 147 since the time to issue a notice under s. 143(2) was over ?

Avijit Das / August 28, 2002

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. ABAD Fisheries Sections 80HHC, 147, 148 Asst. Year 1991-92 S. Sankarasubban & K. Padmanabhan

Calcutta H.C : After having heard the oral submissions of learned counsel for therespective parties this Court is of the view that instead of keeping the writ application pending on the file of this Court it can be disposed of at this stage with certain appropriate directions.

Avijit Das / August 28, 2002

High Court Of Calcutta Parameshwar Nath Rai vs. CCIT & Ors. Sections 127 M.H.S. Ansari, J. Writ Petn. No. 11467

Sec. 2(47), Section 45

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment of the sum of Rs. 4,45,305 as capital gains liable to tax arising out of the compensation amount received under the insurance policy on account of damage to the assessee’s Sutton Tea factory building by fire is valid in law. The assessment year is 1976-77.

Avijit Das / August 27, 2002

High Court Of Madras Neelamalai Agro Industries Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 2(47), 45(1) Asst. Year 1976-77 R. Jayasimha Babu &

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of s. 32AB(1)(b) of the IT Act, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to the investment deposit allowance of Rs. 6,54,637?

Avijit Das / August 27, 2002

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Tribeni Tissues Ltd. Section 32AB(1)(b) Ajoy Nath Ray & Indira Banerjee, JJ. IT Ref.

Sec. 2(XII), Sec. 2(xviii), Sec. 3, Sec. 5(1)(xiv), Section 2, Section 2, Section 5

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a firm is liable to be assessed as a taxable entity under the GT Act, 1958 ?

Avijit Das / August 27, 2002

High Court Of Madras Ramesh Enterprises vs. Commissioner Of Gift Tax Sections GT 2(xii), GT 2(xviii), GT 3, GT 5(1)(xiv)

Sec. 35B, Section 35

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the AO to recompute the DIT relief admissible to the assessee on the income derived from the Foreign Branch at Bangkok without reducing the deduction allowable under s. 35B of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / August 27, 2002

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Bharat Overeas Bank Ltd. Sections 35B, FA 1983 Asst. Year 1984-85 R. Jayasimha Babu

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the interest paid to the assessee was not includible in the hands of the firm under s. 40(b) of the IT Act, 1961?

Avijit Das / August 26, 2002

High Court Of Allahabad Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Ram Prasad Section 40(b) Asst. Year 1969-70, 1970-71 S.K. Sen,

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 … 10 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top