Month: April 2003

Bombay H.C : Whether, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing maintenance expenses incurred by the assessee on the flat owned by it and provided to its employees ?

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Emirates Commercial Bank Ltd. Section 32A, 40A(5), 44C S.H. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Ref. No. 17 of 1996 30th April, 2003 Counsel Appeared R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetly i/b L.S. Shetty, for the Revenue : P.J. Pardiwalla with N. Modi i/b Rustomjee & Ginwala, for the Assessee JUDGMENT …

Bombay H.C : Whether, on facts and circumstances of this case and in law, the Tribunal erred in the holding that interest under s. 234B and s. 234C was not leviable in case income was subjected to tax under s. 115J as it stood at the relevant time ?

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. Sections 32(1), 234B, 234C, RULE Appendix I, Part I, Entry III(2)(ii) Asst. Year 1989-90 S.H. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 251 of 2002 30th April, 2003 Counsel Appeared R.V. Desai & P.S. Jetly, for the Appellant : F.V. Irani & A.K. Jasani, for …

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that no taxable gift or deemed gift under s. 4(c) of the GT Act stands proved to have been made by the company in favour of Smt. Sarabhai and thereby deleting the same ?

High Court Of Gujarat Commissioner Of Gift Tax vs. Gautam Sarabhai Ltd. Sections GT 2(xii), GT 4(1)(c) Asst. Year 1969-70 R.K. Abichandani & K.M. Mehta, JJ. GT Ref. No. 4 of 1989 30th April, 2003 Counsel Appeared Mrs. Mauna Bhatt for Manish R. Bhatt, for the Revenue : B. D. Karia for R.K. Patel, for the …

Bombay H.C : Whether, on interpretation of the above Entry, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to higher depreciation as the assessee did not run motor trucks, motor buses and motor vans on hire nor did it carry on the business of running them on hire ?

High Court Of Bombay Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. vs. DCIT Sections 32(1), Rule Appendix I, Part I, Entry III(2)(ii) S.H. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 77 of 2002 30th April, 2003 Counsel Appeared F.V. Irani & A.K. Jasani, for the Appellant : R.V. Desai & P.S. Jetly, for the Respondent JUDGMENT S.H. Kapadia, …

Bombay H.C : Dadar Manish Market Co-operative Society Ltd. has challenged the order of the TRO dt. 24th March, 2003, on the ground that confirmation of auction sale by the TRO would result in the society being asked to vacate the premises which would cause irreparable loss as the office of the society is situated in the said premises/shop.

High Court Of Bombay Dadar Manish Market Co-Operative Society Limited vs. Union Of India & Ors. Section 222 Second Schedule R. 11(6), Art. 226 S.K. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. Writ Petition No. 1140 of 2003 30th April, 2003 Counsel Appeared : R.K. Kulkarni with C.N. Vardhman, for the Petitioners : R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetly, …

Madras H.C : The petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of the amendment made to r. 3 of the IT Rules, 1962, under the Notification No. S.O. 940(E), dt. 25th Sept., 2001 [(2001) 170 CTR (St) 64], w.e.f. 1st April, 2001.

High Court Of Madras Bhel Executives/Officers Association & Ors. vs. DCIT & ORS. Sections 17(2), 295(2)(c), RULE 3 R. Jayasimha Babu & P.K. Misra, JJ. Writ Petn. Nos. 1868, 2984 to 2987, 3335, 3796, 4161, 4705, 4749, 5222, 6554, 7071, 7962, 8673, 8702, 9025, 9175, 9190, 9315, 9316, 9325, 9326, 9382, 9535, 10153, 10199, 10474, 10706, …

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the sale proceeds of Rs. 7,25,854 received by the assessee on the sale of the export licence represented capital receipt and was exempt from income-tax ?

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Magnum Export (P) Ltd. Sections 4, 10(3), 28(iiia), 45(1), 80HHC(4) D.K. Seth & R.N. Sinha, JJ. IT Ref. No. 29 of 1996 29th April, 2003 Counsel Appeared Sumit Chakravarty & S.N. Dutta, for the Petitioner : R.K. Murarka & V. Murarka, for the Respondent ORDER D.K. seth, J. : The …

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, addition of Rs. 35.10 lacs, being the difference between the sale price of the shares in question at the rate of Rs. 18.90. per share on 18th March, 1991, and the estimated realizable price of Rs. 54, after listing on Calcutta Stock Exchange on 27th June, 1991, as suppressed income, was justified ?

High Court Of Bombay ITC Classic Finance Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. Sections 69 Asst. Year 1991-92 S.H. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 119 of 1999 29th April, 2003 Counsel Appeared Ms. A. Vissanji with S.J. Mehta, for the Appellant : R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetly i/b L.S. Shetty, …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s finding regarding revised return dt. 15th Oct., 1976, having been filed before detection of discrepancy by the ITO was perverse in view of suchdiscrepancy having been pointed out by the ITO on an earlier date, namely, 10th Sept., 1976?

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Ajay Dal Mill Sections 271(1)(c), Expln. Dr. B.S. Chauhan & K.N. Ojha, JJ. IT Ref. No. 310 of 1982 29th April, 2003 Counsel Appeared Bharatji Agrawal, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee JUDGMENT By the court : This is a reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, …
Malcare WordPress Security