Month: October 2003

S.C : The recommended value is the higher of the intrinsic value or the market based value. Though rationally speaking, the recommended value should be the intrinsic value, it may be possible that the market based value at a given point of time is higher than the intrinsic value, which is indicative of a bullish phase/perception of the market and/or industry and/or the company. Therefore, to take into account this practical reality, I have suggested the higher of the two.

Supreme Court Of India Dr. Mrs. Renuka Datla vs. Solvay Pharmaceutical B V & Ors. S. Rajendra Babu, P. Vnkatarama Reddi & Arun Kumar, JJ. SLP (Civil) No. 18035 of 2000 with Interlocutory Application No. 2 of 2002 30th October, 2003 Counsel Appeared : Shanti Bhushan, G.L. Singhvi, KI.K. Venugopal & R.F. Nariman with S. Madhusudhan …

Delhi H.C : Challenge in this writ petition is to the legality of the order dt. 30th March, 1993, passed by the Appropriate Authority under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (for short ‘the Act’), directing preemptive purchase of the ground floor of the house bearing No. D-203, Defence Colony, New Delhi

High Court Of Delhi Raj Kumar vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 269UG, 269UH D.K. Jain & Madan B. Lokur, JJ. Civil Misc. Petn. No. 6863 of 2002 & Civil Writ Petn. No. 395 of 1994 30th October, 2003 Counsel Appeared Arjun Bhandari, for the Petitioner : R.D. Jolly, for the Respondents JUDGMENT D.K. Jain, …

Karnataka H.C : These petitions are directed against an order of the CBDT dt. 3rd May, 2000, (Annex.-K) and for a prayer to direct the CBDT to accord approval to the petitioner under s. 36(1)(viii)

High Court Of Karnataka Weizmann Homes Ltd. vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes Sections 36(1)(viii), proviso Asst. Year 1995-96, 1997-98 R. Gururajan, J. Writ Petn. Nos. 38436 of 2000 and 272 & 273 of 2001 30th October, 2003 ORDER R. Gururajan, J. : These petitions are directed against an order of the CBDT dt. 3rd May, …

Karnataka H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the payment of the compounding fees is not a penalty for infraction of law and hence allowable?

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Mamta Enterprises Sections 37(1), Expln. Asst. Year 1984-85 P. Vishwanatha Shetty & Ajit J. Gunjal, JJ. ITRC No. 24 of 1998 30th October, 2003 Counsel Appeared M.V. Seshachala, for the Petitioner : Ashok A. Kulkarni, for the Respondent ORDER P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. : This reference is made under s. …

Karnataka H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that granite would fall under the category of ‘mineral’ in the context of sub-cl. (b)(ii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 80HHC?

High Court Of Karnataka (Full Bench) Mithy Granite (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer Sections 80HHC(2)(b)(ii) Asst. Year 1984-85, 1989-90 P. Vishwanatha Shetty, D.V. Shylendra Kumar & Ajit J. Gunjal, JJ. IT Appeal No 31 of 2001 29th October, 2003 Counsel Appeared K.R. Prasad & G. Sarangan with S. Parthasarathy & V.K. Raghavan, for the Appellants …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a gift made by the ‘Karta’ of the HUF to his wife out of the HUF assets is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(viii) of the GT Act ?

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Commissioner Of Gift Tax vs. Banshilal Narsidas Section GT 5(1)(viii) Kumar Rajaratnam, C.J. & Dipak Misra, J. MCC No. 52 of 1990 28th October, 2003 Counsel Appeared Rohit Arya, for the Petitioner : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Kumar Rajaratnam, C.J. : The assessee, Banshilal Narsidas, a Hindu undivided family (in …

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that additional tax under s. 143(1A) was not leviable on the assessee ?

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. M.D. Thomas Section 143(1A) Asst. Year 1991-92 K.S. Radhakrishnan & C. Kuriakose, JJ. IT Ref. No. 181 of 1999 27th October, 2003 Counsel Appeared P.K.R. Menon & George K. George, for the Applicant : Raju K. Mathews, for the Respondent JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. : This is a reference under …

Karnataka H.C : The petitioner Mysore Sales International Ltd., is a Karnataka Government undertaking and is engaged in manufacture of arrack.

High Court Of Karnataka Mysore Sales International Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors. Sections 206C Asst. Year 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001 R. Gururajan, J. Writ Petn. Nos. 6869 to 6874 of 2001 27th October, 2003 Counsel Appeared M/s. King and Partridge, Dr. R.B. Krishna Murthy & K.P. Kumar, for the Petitioners : E.R. Indra Kumar …

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of s. 43B r/w s. 36(1)(va), the Tribunal is right in law in holding— (i) second proviso imposes the condition of payment before the due date only in respect of any sum received by an assessee from his employees to which the provisions of s. 2(24)(x) apply. (ii) the assessee is entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 32,900 being the contribution to Group Gratuity made on 18th Jan., 1991?

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Jairam & Sons Section 36(1)(va), 43B K.S. Radhakrishnan & C. Kuriakose, JJ. IT Ref. No. 166 of 1999 27th October, 2003 Counsel Appeared : P.K.R. Menon & George K. George, for the Applicant : P. Balachandran & Smt. Preetha S. Nair, for the Respondent JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. : This …

Gauhati H.C : The petitioner before us is an assessee under the Assam Agrl. IT Act, 1939 (for short “the Act”). For the asst. yr. 1987-88, the petitioner submitted his return whereby the competent authority assessed the income and tax thereupon.

High Court Of Gauhati River Valley Tea Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. Section Assam Agrl. IT 20C(5) Asst. Year 1987-88 P.G. Agarwal, J. Civil Rule No. 379 of 1998 27th October, 2003 Counsel Appeared : V.K. Bhatra, for the Petitioner : Government Advocate, for the Respondents JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. : The petitioner before …
Malcare WordPress Security