August 2003 – taxcaselaw.com

Allahabad H.C : This is an appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, by which the order of the Tribunal dt. 31st Jan., 2003, has been challenged

High Court Of Allahabad Iqbal Hussain vs. CIT Section 48, 260A M. Katju & Umeshwar Pandy, JJ. IT Appeal No. 88 of 2003 29th August, 2003 JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Department. This is an appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961, by …

Rajasthan H.C : To declare that the provisions of s. 269UG(3) were not attracted in the instant case and that the recourse to the said provisions was clearly without jurisdiction and absolutely illegal.

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Ratnalaya Diamonds (P) Ltd. vs. Union Of India Section 269UG Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. Civil Writ Petn. No. 1475 of 1990 29th August, 2003 Counsel Appeared Paras Kuhad, for the Petitioner : R.B. Mathur & R.S. Rathore, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. : As questions of …

S.C : The High Court in a proceeding that arose under Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961, for compulsory purchase of certain immovable property on being challenged held that the show-cause notice issued was too vague and did not disclose the reasons thereof, nor the material considered by the appropriate authority in reaching a tentative conclusion was disclosed

Supreme Court Of India Appropriate Authority Of Income Tax vs. Jagdish Electricians India (P) Ltd. & Ors. Sections 269UD S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 2604 & 2605 of 2001 28th August, 2003 Counsel Appeared T.L.V. Iyer with Ms. Neera Gupta & B.V. Balaram Das, for the Appellant : Vinay Shailendra, Chandra …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in accepting the valuation of the registered valuer who valued land and building and plant and machinery of M/s Jagat Theatre, Chandigarh, at Rs. 48,32,113 whereas the DVO after considering the various factors made the valuation of the above property at Rs. 1,06,88,000?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Sham Lal Section WT 27(3) V.K. Bali & Jasbir Singh, JJ. WTC Nos. 3 to 6 of 1990 28th August, 2003 Counsel Appeared A.S. Tewatia, for the Petitioner : Akshay Bhan, for the Respondent JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. : By this common order, we propose …

Calcutta H.C : It is claimed by the IT authorities that in the balance sheet of Visisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “VCVL”) it has been shown that a sum in excess of Rs. 27 crores is due to it from the petitioner herein

High Court Of Calcutta Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 226(3) Barin Ghosh, J. Writ Petn. No. 941 of 2003 28th August, 2003 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, J. : It is claimed by the IT authorities that in the balance sheet of Visisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “VCVL”) …

Kerala H.C : Whether the brand name in respect of eight items of medicines sold by the assessee for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs to M/s Vysali Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd

High Court Of Kerala Vysali Chemotherapeutics (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 45(1), 48, 55(2) Asst. Year 1992-93 G. Sivarajan & Kurian Joseph, JJ. IT Appeal No. 8 of 2001 27th August, 2003 Counsel Appeared P. Gopalakrishna Warriyar & P. Balakrishnan, for the Appellant : P.K.R. Menon, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The short …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the reopening of the fact that proceedings initiated were on the basis of vague and nonspecific information, which otherwise against the material on record ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Uttam Chand Nahar Sections 147, 148, 260A Asst. Year 1991-92 Rajesh Balia & Sunil Kumar Garg, JJ. IT Appeal No. 41 of 2003 26th August, 2003 Counsel Appeared Sundeep Bhandawat, for the Appellant JUDGMENT Rajesh Balia, J : In this appeal, following substantial question of law arises out of the …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the CIT(A)’s decision that conveyance allowance granted by the assessee to its employees was not perquisite under s. 17(2) of the IT Act, 1961, and consequently directing the AO to revise the demand created in respect of short payment of TDS and interest thereon ?

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Section 17(2), 256(2) Asst. Year 1991-92 Anil Dev Singh, C.J. & K.S. Rathore, J. IT Ref. Appln. No. 11 of 1999 26th August, 2003 Counsel Appeared : R.B. Mathur, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY …

Madras H.C : It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a sum of Rs. 7 lakhs of rent from the property under attachment has already been collected, which the respondent is not entitled to under any of the provisions of the Act.

High Court Of Madras R. Rajbabu vs. Tax Recovery Officer Sections 222, 223 K. Raviraja Pandian, J. Wrie Petn. No. 9059 of 2003 & WMP No. 11586 of 2003 25th August, 2003 Counsel Appeared K.P. Sanjeev Kumar, for the Petitioner : J. Naresh Kumar, for the Respondent ORDER K. Raviraja Pandian, J. : With the consent …

Allahabad H.C : The AO made efforts to verify the assessee’s stand by sending notices to these parties, but all the letters came back unserved with the remarks “not known” or “incomplete address”

High Court Of Allahabad Brijesh Textiles vs. CIT & ORS. Section 260A M. Katju & U. Pandey, JJ. IT Appeal No. 87 of 2003 25th August, 2003 JUDGMENT M. Katju, J. : This appeal has been filed under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is challenging the …

Month: August 2003