Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

January 2003

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred on the foreign tour of the wife of a director of the company is not an allowable deduction under the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / January 31, 2003

High Court Of Kerala (Full Bench) Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 37(1) Asst. Year 1990-91 Jawahar Lal Gupta, […]

Sec. 143(1)(a), Section 143

Gauhati H.C : As the question arising for determination in both the cases are identical, they were taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

Avijit Das / January 31, 2003

High Court Of Gauhati R.K. Gyankishore Singh vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. Sections 143(1)(a), Art. 226 Asst.

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 43(3), Section 32A

Rajasthan H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the building in question was covered within the meaning of the term “Plant” for the purposes of allowance of depreciation and investment allowance ?

Avijit Das / January 31, 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. R.G. Ispat Ltd. Sections 32(1), 32A, 43(3) Y.R. Meena & K.C.

Sec. 2(23), Sec. 64(1)(iii)

Andhra Pradesh H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law, in holding that the share income of the assessee’s minor children was assessable in the firm under s. 182(3) of the IT Act and that it could not be included in the hands of the non-resident assessee in his individual assessment under s. 64(1)(iii) of the Act ?

Avijit Das / January 31, 2003

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh CIT vs. B. Narasimha Rao Sections 2(23), 64(1)(iii), 182(3) B. Sudershan Reddy & N.V. Ramana,

Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 271

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the mistake committed by counsel in advising the assessee and the assessee on such advice submitted return omitting a particular item to be shown in the return can be said to be an act committed by the assessee in concealing deliberately the item of income and thus is liable for penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / January 31, 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Chandra Pal Bagga vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr. Section 271(1)(c) Asst.

Sec. 28(i), Sec. 37(1)

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the addition of Rs. 5,14,170 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources under s. 69A of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / January 31, 2003

High Court Of Calcutta Bimal Kumar Damani vs. CIT Sections 28(i), 37(1), 69A, 256 D.K. Seth & R.N. Sinha, JJ.

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the order of the ITO had got merged in the order of the CIT(A) and, therefore, the CIT had no jurisdiction to revise that order ?

Avijit Das / January 31, 2003

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Span International Section 263(1) Expln. (c) Asst. Year 1976-77 M. Katju & Prakash Krishna,

Sec. 28(i), Section 22

Karnataka H.C : Whether the income derived by the assessee from letting out of the house property should be assessed under the head “Income from house property” under s. 22 or “Income from business” under s. 28

Avijit Das / January 30, 2003

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Bhoopalam Commercial Complex & Industries (P) Ltd. Sections 22, 28(i) Asst. Year 1985-86, 1986-87

Section 17, Section 23, Wealth Tax Act

Karnataka H.C : Whether in terms of s. 17B of the Act the assessee can be held liable to pay interest for delay in filing the return of net income

Avijit Das / January 30, 2003

High Court Of Karnataka Smt. M.R. Prabhavathy vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Sections WT 17B, WT 23(2A) Asst. Year

Gujarat H.C : Whether,the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in accepting the assessee’s claim for allowance of bad debts amounting to Rs. 47,79,259 ?

Avijit Das / January 29, 2003

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Sections 36(1)(vii), 36(2), 43B Asst. Year 1983-84, 1984-85 R.K. Abichandani

Post pagination

1 2 … 10 Next →

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

Scroll to Top