Month: May 2003

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, does Circular No. 451, dt. 17th Feb., 1986 (No. 19), relied on by the assessee and the Tribunal, contemplate categoric detection of concealment prior to the filing of the return ?

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Central Stores Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1982-83 G. Sivarajan & J.M. James, JJ. IT Appeal No. 53 of 2000 28th May, 2003 Counsel Appeared P.K.R. Menon & George K. George, for the Appellant : John Ramesh K.I. John, for the Respondent JUDGMENT G. Sivarajan, J. : The CIT, Trivandrum, has …

Karnataka H.C :A search under s. 132 of the IT Act bars a person from making the disclosure in respect of the previous year in which the search took place and also for any earlier previous year. In case, a search warrant is issued in the name of one person, can others who also reside at the same premises and whose statements may have been recorded during the course of the search, make a disclosure of their income ?

High Court Of Karnataka Mysore Plantations Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. Sections FA 62, FA 64, FA 65, FA 68 Asst. Year 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97 R. Gururajan, J. Writ Petn. Nos. 26275 to 26278 of 2000 27th May, 2003 Counsel Appeared G. Sarangan for S. Parthasarthi, for the Petitioner : M.V. Sheshachala, for the Respondents ORDER …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the Tribunal was justified in having restored an addition of Rs. 1,00,000 on account of undisclosed stocks etc. on a purely ad hoc basis without assigning any rhyme, reason or basis for the same ?

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Shri Girraj Industries vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 260A Y.R. Meena & Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ. IT Appeal No. 80 of 2003 26th May, 2003 Counsel Appeared A. Kasliwal, for the Appellant JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The following questions are raised in this appeal stated to …

Kerala H.C : The only question involved in this appeal is regarding the valuation of the hotel building constructed by the assessee, over a period of eight years from 1983 to 1991.

High Court Of Kerala Hotel Whitelines vs. CIT Sections 69 Asst. Year 1988-89 G. Sivarajan & J.M. James, JJ. IT Appeal No. 192 of 2000 26th May, 2003 Counsel Appeared P. Balachandran, for the Appellant : P.K.R. Menon, for the Respondent JUDGMENT G. Sivarajan, J. : The matter arises under the IT Act, 1961, (for short …

Rajasthan H.C : For an escaped assessment under s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961, notice under s. 148, dt. 17th June, 2002, has been issued to the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1999-2000, which is under challenge in the present writ petition

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Gehna vs. Union Of India & Anr. Sections 148 Asst. Year 1999-2000 Ashok Parihar, J. Civil Writ Petn. No. 4787 of 2002 26th May, 2003 Counsel Appeared N.M. Ranka with Rajkumar Yadav, for the Petitioner JUDGMENT ASHOK PARIHAR, J. : Looking to the short controversy involved in the present …

Karnataka H.C : The appellant is a regular income-tax assessee. His main business is that of manufacture and sale of bricks under the name and style of M/s Nanjundeswara Bricks and Tiles, situated at Arakere Village, Bangalore. During the year relevant for the asst. yr. 1994-95

High Court Of Karnataka Y. Venugopala Reddy vs. CIT & Anr. Sections 1998FA(No. 2) 88 Asst. Year 1994-95 S.R. Nayak & K. Ramanna, JJ. Writ Appeal No. 5435 of 1999 26th May, 2003 Counsel Appeared S. Ganesh Rao, for the Appellant : E.R. Indrakumar, for the Respondents JUDGMENT S.R. NAYAK, J. : The appellant is a …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The assessee has filed this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order of the Tribunal, Delhi Bench, Delhi, dt. 20th July, 2001, whereby its appeal against the order of the CIT, Rohtak, dt. 31st Oct., 2000, has been dismissed.

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Hari Iron Trading Co. vs. CIT Sections 263 Asst. Year 1998-99 N.K. Sud & G.S. Singhvi, JJ. IT Appeal No. 69 of 2002 23rd May, 2003 Counsel Appeared P.C. Jain, for the Appellant : A.S. Tewatia, for the Respondent JUDGMENT N.K. SUD, J. : The assessee has filed this appeal …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the Tribunal has committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the prayer of the appellant for raising additional ground on the premise that such additional ground was raised after the expiry of prescribed time-limit for filing appeal before the Tribunal?

High Court Of Rajasthan Madad Lal Ansari vs. DCIT Sections 253 Asst. Year 1994-95 N.N. Mathur & K.K. Acharya, JJ. IT Appeal No. 33 of 2003 22nd May, 2003 Counsel Appeared Vikas Balia, for the Appellant : Sundeep Bhandawat, for the Revenue JUDGMENT N.M. MATHUR, J. : In view of the short controversy involved, we have …
Malcare WordPress Security