Month: October 2002

Kerala H.C : This appeal is filed by the Lord Krishna Bank Ltd., Kochi, an assessee to income-tax, against the order dt. 29th April, 2002, in ITA No. 644 (Coch)/1996 passed by the Tribunal.

High Court Of Kerala Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Sections 72 Asst. Year 1993-94 G. Sivarajan & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. IT Appeal No. 211 of 2002 31st October, 2002 Counsel Appeared Joseph Markose & Thomas Vellappally, for the Appellant : P.K.R. Menon & George K. George, for the Respondent JUDGMENT …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the excise duty collection was a trading receipt in the year of receipt and hence excise duty refund of Rs. 1,45,752 was liable to tax in the hands of the assessee under s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Rajasthan Wolkem (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 41(1), 256 Asst. Year 1986-87 N.N. Mathur & H.R. Panwar, JJ. IT Ref. No. 33 of 1997 30th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared N.M. Ranka with Sanjeev Johri, for the Assessee : Sundeep Bhandawat, for the Revenue JUDGMENT N.N. Mathur, J. : The Tribunal, Jaipur, at the …

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the surtax payable by the assessee was not deductible in computing the assessee’s income under the head ‘Profits and gains of business or profession’ ?

High Court Of Bombay Ethnor Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 37(1), 37(3A), 37(3B), 40A(5) Asst. Year 1979-80, 1980-81 S.H. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Ref. Nos. 170 of 1987 and 31 of 1989 30th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared J.D. Mistry, for the Applicant : R.V. Desai & P.S. Jetly, for the Respondent JUDGMENT J.P. DEVADHAR, J. …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that any action taken by the AO under s. 147(b) of the IT Act, 1961 on the basis of an audit report does tantamount to change of opinion and, therefore, action under s. 147(b) was not justified?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Ambika Gwar Gum Mills Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1982-83 N.N. Mathur & H.R. Panwar, JJ. IT Ref. No. 22 of 1997 30th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared Sundeep Bhandawat, for the Petitioner : Anjay Kothari, for the Respondent JUDGMENT N.N. Mathur, J. : This is an application under s. 256(2) of …

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held that the assessee have fulfilled all conditions laid down in section of the IT Act, 1961, r/w r. 6AAA of the IT Rules for deduction of the amount donated to the approved society, which had not come back to the assessee soon after or later on in some form at the other, that Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the matter to the AO on the reasons to the AO on the reasons and grounds given in the order passed on appeal ?

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Chotatingrai Tea & Ors. Etc. Section 35CCA Ms. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 2365 to 2367 of 2000 29th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared S. Rajjappa, K.C. Kaushik & Ms. Sushma Suri, for the Appellant : Sunil Kumar Jain, for the Respondents ORDER By the court : …

Delhi H.C : The Finance Act, 1992, by amending s. 54E(1) of the Act, withdrew the exemption from tax in respect of long- term capital gains from the asst. yr. 1993-94.

High Court Of Delhi Bhupendra Kumar Bhaumik vs. Union Of India Sections 54E(1C), Art. 14 D.K. Jain & Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, JJ. Civil Writ Petn. No. 546 of 1993 29th October 2002 Counsel Appeared Bishwajit Bhattacharya, for the Petitioner : R.D. Jolly & Ms. Rashmi Chopra, for the Respondent JUDGMENT MS. SHARDA AGGARWAL, J. : By …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee is a non-trading company and hence the rate of taxation is 55 per cent ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Sree Annapoorna Gowrishankar Hotels (P) Ltd. Sections 1986FA 2(7)(g) Asst. Year 1986-87 N.V. Balasubramanian & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ. Tax Case No. 92 of 1998 29th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared T. Ravikumar, for the Applicant : R. Meenakashisundaram, for the Respondent ORDER N.V. Balasubramanian, J. : The Tribunal has stated …
Malcare WordPress Security