Month: March 2003

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) and the Tribunal erred in giving direction to the AO to assess the income of Rs. 2,65,370 from sale of plot under the head ‘Capital gain’ in place of adventure in the nature of trade and business assessed by AO ?

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CIT vs. Smt. Saraswati Bai Jaiswal Section 45 Dipak Misra & A.K. Shrivastava, JJ. ITA No. 38 of 2000 31st March, 2003 Counsel Appeared Rohit Arya, for the Appellant : Sumit Nema, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J. : This is an appeal preferred under s. 260A of the IT …

Madras H.C : The petitioner is a public company registered under the Companies Act. The company filed its return of income for the asst. yr. 1993-94 on 31st Dec., 1993, which was the due date for filing the return under the Indian IT Act.

High Court Of Madras Fisher-Xomox Sanmar Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Sections 147, 148 Asst. Year 1993-94 D. Murugesan, J. Writ Petn. No. 10065 of 2003 & WPMP No. 12768 of 2003 31st March, 2003 Counsel Appeared V. Ramachandran & Anita Sumanth, for the Petitioner : Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, for the Respondent ORDER D. …

Delhi H.C : These three appeals, by the Revenue, under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) are directed against the orders passed by the Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ‘the Tribunal), in ITA Nos. 2062/Del/1996, 3676 & 3122/Del/1997 and 3157/Del/1999, pertaining the asst. yrs. 1991-92, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1996-97, respectively. Since a common issue is involved in all the three appeals, these are being disposed of by this order.

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. A.R.J. Security Printers Sections 80-I, 260A Asst. Year 1991-92, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1996-97 D.K. Jain & Madan B. Lokur, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 290, 319 & 321 of 2002 31st March, 2003 Counsel Appeared Sanjiv Khanna, for the Appellant : B. Gupta, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.K. JAIN, J. : These …

Gujarat H.C : This is a petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dt. 5th Sept., 2001, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Bench ‘C’, Ahmedabad (Tribunal) in Misc. Appln. No. 31/Rajkot/2000 under s. 254(2)

High Court Of Gujarat Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. Sections 254(2), 255(5), ITAT Rule 3, ITAT Rule 4, ITAT Rule 24, ITAT Rule 34A(3) Asst. Year 1996-97 A.R. Dave & D.A. Mehta, JJ. Special Civil Appln. No. 1247 of 2002 31st March, 2003 Counsel Appeared Pranav G. Desai, for the …

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,04,000 made by the AO and confirmed and enhanced by CIT(A) to Rs. 2,69,685 on account of interest from HUF-debtor on accrual basis ?

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Balarampur Commercial Enterprises Ltd. Sections 5 Asst. Year 1988-89 D.K. Seth & R.N. Sinha, JJ. IT Ref. No. 36 of 1997 31st March, 2003 Counsel Appeared Jaydeb Saha, for the Petitioner : R.N. Bajoria & J.P. Khaitan, for the Respondent ORDER D.K. SETH, J. : In this case the following …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law and had valid materials in holding that gifts made by the producers to the children of the assessee cannot be construed as consideration received by the assessee for the professional service rendered by him and accordingly, in excluding these gifts from the total income of the assessee ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. G.S.R. Krishnamurthy Sections 4, 5 Asst. Year 1985-86, 1986-87 R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ. Tax Case Nos. 246 & 249 of 1999 31st March, 2003 Counsel Appeared T. Ravikumar, for the Revenue : P.P.S. Janardhana Raja, for the Assessee JUDGMENT R. Jayasimha Babu, J. : The assessment …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the notice issued under s. 158BC of the IT Act of 1961 by the AO in the present case to file the return ‘within 15 days’ does not violates the provision of s. 158BC which requires the notice of ‘not being less than 15 days’ implying clear 15 days and whether the assessment framed on the basis of such illegal notice is not bad in law despite of filing of return by the assessee as estoppel has no place in statute and illegality cannot be waived even by the acquiescence of the assessee ?

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Umar Farooqui vs. CIT Sections 260A Block Period 1989-90 to 1998-99 Y.R. Meena & K.C. Sharma, JJ. IT Appeal No. 32 of 2003 31st March, 2003 Counsel Appeared Sanjay Jhanwar, for the Appellant JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : In this appeal, following questions are proposed stating that these questions …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the disallowance of Rs. 75,83,860 under s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act of 1961 is justified on the ground that no direct nexus is proved between the interest-free advances received from M/s Gillette U.K. Ltd. and interest-free advances given to subsidiary companies when the nexus is not only evident from the bank statements but is also accepted by the Department in their remand report?

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Indian Shaving Products Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 36(1)(iii), 260A Asst. Year 1989-90, 1990-91 Y.R. Meena & K.C. Sharma, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 34 & 45 of 2003 31st March, 2003 Counsel Appeared Sanjay Jhanwar, for the Appellant JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. …

Rajasthan H.C : The facts in all the cases reveal that the respondent No. 4 issued a notice to the petitioner, which was received by the petitioner on 7th Feb., 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan Vimal Chand Gautam Chand vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 148 Asst. Year 1992-93 Prakash Tatia, J. Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 1340 to 1342 of 2003 29th March, 2003 Counsel Appeared Gajenra Maheshwari, for the Petitioner ORDER Prakash Tatia, J. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In all these three …

Andhra Pradesh H.C : Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, s. 13(1)(c)(ii) r/w ss. 13(2)(6) and 13 (3)(d) of the Act are attracted so as to deny to the assessee the operation of and benefit under the provisions of s. 11 of the Act ?

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh Action For Welfare & Awakening In Rural Environment (Aware) vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Sections 11, 13(1)(c), 13(2)(b), 13(3)(d) Asst. Year 1993-94 S. Sudershan Reddy & C.V. Ramulu, JJ. IT Appeal No. 39 of 2002 28th March, 2003 Counsel Appeared Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram & M.S. Ramachandra Rao, for the Appellant …
Malcare WordPress Security