Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

November 2003

Sec. 2(24), Sec. 28(i)

Allahabad H.C : Whether there was material justifying the Tribunal’s finding that there was a corresponding liability in respect of accretion in the contingency account No. II amounting to Rs. 43,095?

Avijit Das / November 18, 2003

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Motor & General Sales (P) Ltd. Sections 2(24), 28(i) M. Katju & Umeshwar Pandey, […]

Sec. 256(2), Section 256, Section 4

Allahabad H.C : Whether in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the facts as narrated by the Departmental authorities have not been disputed, accepting deposits on loan under various schemes and converting them into income was a regular trading activity of the assessee liable to tax under IT Act?

Avijit Das / November 18, 2003

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Sahara India Investment Ltd. Sections 4, 256(2) Asst. Year 1991-92 M. Katju & U.

Sec. 158BC, Sec. 158BD, Sec. 260A

Delhi H.C : Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in assessing amount of Rs. 14,88,784 under s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 without invoking provisions of s. 158BD of IT Act, 1961 because “Annex. A-11” was not found in search at the premises of the appellant and the appellant has disowned this paper from the very beginning? Whether, on facts and circumstances of the case, assessment order is invalid, it being under s. 158BC instead of 158BD which is separate and independent charging section?

Avijit Das / November 18, 2003

High Court Of Delhi Friends Overseas (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 158BC, 158BD, 260A D.K. Jain & Madan B. Lokur,

Section 216, Section 32, Section 32AB

Madras H.C : The assessment year is 1987-88. The first question is concerned with the interpretation of s. 32AB and as to whether it has been construed too narrowly by the Tribunal.

Avijit Das / November 17, 2003

High Court Of Madras Carborandum Universal Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 32AB, 216 Asst. Year 1987-88 R. Jayasimha Babu & S.R.

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the expenditure of Rs. 2,16,000 incurred for construction of Manikyalal Verma Rajkiya Textile Institute as revenue expenditure, following its earlier order in ITA Nos. 741, 742 and 615/Jp/1992 in assessee’s case for asst. yr. 1987-88

Avijit Das / November 17, 2003

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Rajasthan SPG. & WVG. Mills Ltd. Section 37(1) Asst. Year 1990-91 Rajesh Balia &

Bombay H.C : The appellant entered into an agreement of sale in respect of agricultural piece of land with one Pardeshi on 23rd Sept., 1979.

Avijit Das / November 17, 2003

High Court Of Bombay : Aurangabad Bench Anant Chunilal Kate vs. Income Tax Officer Asst. Year 1981-82 Sections 5 B.B.

Income Tax Case Laws

Gujarat H.C : Notice to the respondents. Since the constitutional validity of the Ordinance dt. 16th Oct., 2003, is challenged, notice to the Attorney General of India.

Avijit Das / November 17, 2003

High Court Of Gujarat Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bar Association vs. Union Of India Section Art. 123, Art. 323B Bhawani

Section 15, Section 16

Uttaranchal H.C : the impugned notification is issued in purported exercise of power conferred on the CBDT by s. 295 of the IT Act, 1961, r/w s. 17(2) and s. 192(2C) of the IT Act; that by virtue of the impugned notification, the CBDThas purported to supplement s. 17(2)

Avijit Das / November 17, 2003

High Court Of Uttaranchal National Federation Of Insurance Field Workers Of India & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors.

Delhi H.C : Mr. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the CIT was not justified in rejecting the same as the securities furnished in the form of immovable properties, belonging to the wife of the petitioner, were very sound.

Avijit Das / November 17, 2003

High Court Of Delhi Rakesh Kumar Aggarwal vs. CIT Sections 220 D.K. Jain & Madan B. Lokur, JJ. Civil Writ

Madras H.C: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that additional tax under s. 104 is leivable ?

Avijit Das / November 17, 2003

High Court Of Madras Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. vs. CIT Section 104 Asst. Year 1985-86 R. Jayasimha Babu &

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next →

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

Scroll to Top