April 2003

Section 132

Delhi H.C : Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act with its registered office in Calcutta. In July, 2000, petitioner-company is alleged to have taken a premises bearing No. C-1/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on rent from S/Shri Nandlal Kothari and Shri Shyam Sunder Kothari who were the owners of the said building, for starting the business of import and export, sale and purchase of marble, granite, stones, marble-chips and marblestone in Delhi; that the lease dt. 26th June, 2000

/

High Court Of Delhi Bandel Traders (P) Ltd. vs. Union Of India Sections 132(1) S.K. Mahajan, J. Civil Writ Petn.

Section 27

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gift made by the assessee in favour of his three minor sons in the form of Hiba under the Mohammedan Law attracts the provisions of s. 64(1)(v) r/w s. 27(i) of the IT Act, 1961, and, therefore, the rental income of the three minors from the properties gifted to them by the assessee was includible in the total income of the assessee for the three years under consideration ?

/

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Nizamuddin vs. CIT Sections 27(i), 64(1)(v) Asst. Year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 Y.R. Meena

Sec. 143(1)(a), Sec. 260A, Section 143

Madhya Pradesh H.C : In this appeal preferred under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, (for brevity ‘the Act’), the Revenue has called in question the pregnability of the order dt. 5th Jan., 1999, passed by the Income Tax Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA/234/Jab/1996.

/

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CIT vs. Shikharchand Jain Sections 143(1)(a), 260A Asst. Year 1994-95 Dipak Misra & A.K. Shrivastava,

Sec. 260A, Section 69

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether the learned Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs. 8,95,630, which was made on account of difference of 4,975.77 quintals of stock of rice and paddy as per bank statement furnished to the bank and as per stock register maintained by the assessee, which accepting the explanation of the assessee and ignoring the deposition of bank official who explained the system of pledge and hypothecation of stock and while ignoring the discrepancies found by the AO ?

/

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Punjab Rice & General Mills Sections 69, 260A Asst. Year 1989-90 G.S.

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security