Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

November 2002

Madras H.C : The property let out by the assessee was not an asset exigible to wealth-tax within the meaning of s. 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983

Avijit Das / November 20, 2002

High Court Of Madras Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Meenakshi Automobile (P) Ltd. Sections FA1983 40(3)(vi) Asst. Year 1986-87, 1987-88, […]

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to investment allowance in respect of the liability arising out of the fluctuation in exchange rates relatable to the repayment of the principal amount borrowed for purchase of capital equipment ?

Avijit Das / November 20, 2002

High Court Of Gujarat Ahmedabad Kaiser-I-Hind Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT Section 32A, 43A A.R. Dave & K.M. Mehta, JJ.

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that provisions of s. 40(b) of the Act were applicable in relation to (a) salary amount of Rs. 42,000 paid to Shri N.R. Shah (b) consultancy fees of Rs. 12,000 paid to Shri V.R. Shah and (c) professional fees of Rs. 4,500 paid to Shri S.R. Shah in their individual capacities even though each of them was a partner in the assessee-firm in his capacity as Karta of his HUF ?

Avijit Das / November 20, 2002

High Court Of Gujarat Industrial Linnings vs. CIT Section 40(b) Asst. Year 1982-83 A.R. Dave & K.M. Mehta, JJ. IT

Madras H.C : Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the building Asoka Plaza is not to be treated as ‘plant’ of the applicant’s business of real estate developing and managing office and commercial complexes duly authorised by the applicant’s memorandum of association of the company but is to be treated as ‘building’ chargeable to wealth-tax in the hands of the applicant under the provisions of s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 ?

Avijit Das / November 20, 2002

High Court Of Madras Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Ashoka Betelnut Co. (P) Ltd. Sections 1983FA 40(3)(vi) Asst. Year 1986-87,

Kerala H.C : This is an appeal filed by the IT Department against the order of the Tribunal, Cochin Bench, in ITA 132/Cochin/1994 in respect of the asst. yr. 1984-85.

Avijit Das / November 20, 2002

High Court Of Kerala ITO vs. S.N.B.S. Samajam Section 11(4A) Asst. year 1984-85 G. Sivarajan & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ.

Sec. 260A, Section 23

Delhi H.C : These eight appeals by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), are directed against the orders passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi

Avijit Das / November 20, 2002

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Vinay Bharat Ram & Sons (HUF) & Ors. Sections 23, 260A Asst. Year 1991-92

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’s share of income of the private family trust cannot be taken into account for rate purposes under s. 86(v) of the IT Act?

Avijit Das / November 19, 2002

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. P.N. Bajaj Sections 86(v) Asst. Year 1985-86 N.V. Balasubramanian & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ.

Section 32, Section 32A

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in the light of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Dy. CIT vs. India Cine Agencies (1995) 54 ITD 257 (Mad), the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled for relief under s. 32A of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / November 19, 2002

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Pooshya Exports (P) Ltd. Sections 32A, 80HHC(2)(b)(ii) Asst. Year 1988-89 N.V. Balasubramanian & K.

Gift Tax Act, Sec. 2(XII), Section 26

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law and fact in holding that the surrender of share of 30 per cent in the firm by the assessee is liable to gift-tax ?

Avijit Das / November 19, 2002

High Court Of Kerala Mrs. Rhona Varghese vs. Commissioner Of Gift Tax Sections GT 2(xii), GT 3, GT 26 G.

Section 21, Section 5

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that since the assessee is to be taxed as an ‘individual’ for the purpose of the WT Act under s. 21(4), the benefit under s. 5 of the Act cannot be denied to the assessee ?

Avijit Das / November 18, 2002

High Court Of Madras Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. K. Santhanam Trust Sections WT 5, WT 21(4) Asst. Year 1982-83,

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 4 5 6 … 9 Next →

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

Scroll to Top