Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

May 2003

Kerala H.C : Petitioner is a private limited company with unlimited liability engaged in the business of direct selling of principally fast-moving consumer goods. Its registered office is at New Delhi. It started commercial operation in May, 1998.

Avijit Das / May 22, 2003

High Court Of Kerala Amway India Enterprises vs. Union Of India & Anr. Section 131 P.R. Raman, J. O.P. No. […]

Section 33, Section 33AB

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the tea development allowance under s. 33AB of the IT Act, 1961, must be in relation to the income of the business of growing and manufacturing tea, rather than to the taxable portion of such income ?

Avijit Das / May 22, 2003

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Mahavir Plantations Ltd. Section 33AB, Rule 8 Asst. Year 1986-87 G. Sivarajan & J.M.

Gauhati H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the CIT(A) decision ignoring the fact that the Central sales- tax and State sales-tax collected by the assessee in the course of its business form part of the trading or business receipt ?

Avijit Das / May 22, 2003

High Court Of Gauhati CIT vs. India Carbon Ltd. Section 43B P.P. Naolekar C. & I.A. Ansari, JJ. IT Appeal

Kerala H.C : The petitioner has no other effective alternative remedy against the impugned assessment particularly since the assessment is violative of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the IT Act and is without jurisdiction.

Avijit Das / May 21, 2003

High Court Of Kerala Tolin Rubbers (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Sections 147, Art. 226 Asst. Year

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in sustaining an addition of Rs. 85,000 as made by the AO being unexplained investment in the purchases under s. 69 of the IT Act, 1961, and whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse ?

Avijit Das / May 21, 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Radhakishan Ramniranjan vs. CIT & Anr. Sections 69 Asst. Year 1990-91 Y.R. Meena

Sec. 269UC, Sec. 269UD, Sec. 269UL

Delhi H.C : The petitioners pray for quashing of an order dt. 20th/21st Nov., 1990, passed by the appropriate authority under Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), and a direction to the said authority to grant ‘No objection certificate’ under s. 269UL(3) of the Act.

Avijit Das / May 21, 2003

High Court Of Delhi K.L. Suneja & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 269UC, 269UD, 269UL(3) D.K. Jain

Rajasthan H.C : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under s. 80HHC in respect of counter sales effected to foreign tourists in its showroom, in view of Expln. (aa) to s. 80HHC ?

Avijit Das / May 20, 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. Rajendra Kasliwal Section 80HHC, Expln. (aa) Asst. Year 1992-93 Y.R. Meena

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The order of the Tribunal relates to four assessment years, viz., 1988-89 to 1991-92, involving a common question about the investment in the construction of a commercial complex in the four years. The present appeal relates to the asst. yr. 1989-90

Avijit Das / May 16, 2003

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana CIT vs. Trilok Chand Karta Section 260A Asst. Year 1989-90 N.K. Sud & G.S.

Calcutta H.C : This is an application for review of an order passed on 12th June, 2000, in F.M.A. 484 of 2000 (F.M.A.T. 3124 of 1992) [reported as Smt. Bidya Devi vs. CIT & Ors. (2000) 164 CTR (Cal) 109— Ed.] by the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Y.R. Meena and Mr. Justice R.K. Mazumdar, as Their Lordships then were.

Avijit Das / May 15, 2003

High Court Of Calcutta Smt. Bidya Devi vs. CIT & Ors. Sections CPC 114, CPC 141, CPC Order 47, 179

Sec. 260A, Section 260

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order Annexs. P1, P2 and P3 are legally sustainable ?

Avijit Das / May 15, 2003

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Ved Prakash vs. CIT Section 260A N.K. Sud & G.S. Singhvi, JJ. IT Appeal

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 … 6 Next →

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

Scroll to Top