Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

January 2003

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

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the penalty only in respect of an amount of Rs. 31,000 and thereby cancelling the balance penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / January 23, 2003

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel Section 271(1)(c) R.K. Abichandani & A.L. Dave, JJ. IT Ref. No. […]

Sec. 11(1)(a), Section 11

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of the assessee-trust was not entitled to exemption under s. 11(1)(a) of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / January 23, 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan :Jaipur Bench Shri Akhey Ram Ishwari Prasad Trust vs. CIT Sections 11(1)(a) Y.R. Meena & Sunil

Bombay H.C : Whether income from property known as Shalini Palace at Kolhapur, purported to be gifted by the assessee by gift deed dt. 27th Sept., 1964, subject to the agreement between the assessee and the donee dt. 27th Sept., 1964, could be included in the assessee’s total income ?

Avijit Das / January 23, 2003

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Major General Sir Shahaji Chatrapati Section 22, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, s. 123

S.C : The search party was headed by one Harinder Kumar who had been appointed as the authorised officer for the purposes of s. 132 of the Act by the CIT.

Avijit Das / January 23, 2003

Supreme Court Of India Union Of India & Ors. vs. Vipan Kumar Jain & Ors. Sections 132 Mrs. Ruma Pal

Bombay H.C : Whether in view of specific definition of the expression ‘book profit’ given in Explanation to s. 115J(1) of the IT Act, it is permissible for the AO to make adjustments to the book profit beyond those authorised by the definition and to recast the P&L a/c ?

Avijit Das / January 23, 2003

High Court Of Bombay Kinetic Motor Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT Sections 115J Asst. Year 1990-91 S.H. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar,

Sec. 21A, Section 21, Section 27

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,03,838 for the asst. yr. 1975-76, respectively, made by the WTO on account of assets held by the assessee-trust in two excluded companies under s. 13(2) of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / January 23, 2003

High Court Of Delhi Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Daulat Ram Public Mission Sections WT 21A, WT 27(3) Asst. Year

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Heard Shri K.N. Puntambekar, learned counsel for the appellant, on the question of admission, as both the appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Tribunal, Indore Bench, in two cross-appeals preferred by the assessee and the Revenue

Avijit Das / January 23, 2003

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench Ajit Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer Section 260A Asst. Year 1994-95 &

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in discussing the Department’s appeal against the order of the CIT(A), deleting the addition made under s. 143(1)(a) of the IT Act as it then stood, relying on the ratio of the judgment in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs. K.S. Pathania (1992) 102 CTR (Bom) 194 : (1992) 196 ITR 55 (Bom), without appreciating the Board Circular No. 689, dt. 24th Aug., 1994, which permits prima facie disallowance on the basis of the information available in the return, accounts and documents annexed to it ?

Avijit Das / January 22, 2003

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan Corporation Ltd. Section 143(1)(a) Asst. year 1995-96 S.H. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar,

Sec. 158B, Sec. 158BA, Sec. 260A, Section 158

Karnataka H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal for cancelling the block assessment in question are perverse being contrary to the materials on record and have been arrived at on conjectures and surmises ?

Avijit Das / January 22, 2003

High Court Of Karnataka DCIT vs. H.V. Shantharam Sections 158B, 158BA, 260A Asst. Year Block period 1989-90 to 1999-2000 G.C.

Sec. 32(1)(iii), Sec. 33B

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in withdrawing rehabilitation allowance of Rs. 26,910 granted by the CIT(A) under s. 33B of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the properties which were extensively damaged ?

Avijit Das / January 22, 2003

High Court Of Gujarat Klin Industrial (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 32(1)(iii), 33B R.K. Abichandani & A.L. Dave, JJ. IT

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 3 4 5 … 10 Next →

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

Scroll to Top