January 2004 – taxcaselaw.com

Jharkhand H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the imposition of penalty under s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act amounting to Rs. 2,20,000 was legal and valid?

High Court Of Jharkhand New United Construction Co. vs. CIT Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1985-86 P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. & R.K. Merathia, J. Tax Case No. 36 of 1998 29th January, 2004 Counsel Appeared Biren Poddar & Darshna Poddar Mishra, for the Appellant : K.K. Jhunjhunwala, for the Respondent JUDGMENT P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. : The Tribunal, Patna, …

Karnataka H.C : Petitioner is before me questioning the rejection order at Annex.-R dt. 4th Aug., 2003, issued by the respondent. Petitioner states that it is a charitable trust.

High Court Of Karnataka Bangalore Education Trust vs. Director Of Income Tax (Exemption) Sections 80G, Rule 11AA R. Gururajan, J Writ Petn. No. 52394 of 2003 29th January, 2004 Counsel Appeared K.R. Prasad, for the Petitioner ORDER R. Gururajan, J. : Petitioner is before me questioning the rejection order at Annex.-R dt. 4th Aug., 2003, issued …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal confirming an ad hoc addition of Rs. 1,50,000 out of Rs. 2,00,000 made by the AO on account of alleged excess stock was perverse and without any material to support the finding ?

High Court Of Delhi Goojar Mal Ganpat Rai vs. CIT Section 69 B.C. Patel, C.J. & Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. IT Appeal No. 350 of 2003 29th January, 2004 Counsel Appeared O.S. Bajpai, for the Appellant : R.D. Jolly with Ajay Jha, for the Respondent JUDGMENT By the court : Admit. 2. The following question requires …

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that on reconstitution of partnership firm, where the existing partner surrendered a portion of his share and the incoming partner brought in capital, the transaction did not amount to gift?

High Court Of Gujarat Commissioner Of Gift Tax vs. Rameshchandra Ravjibhai Sections GT 2(xii), GT 4(1)(a) Asst. Year 1979-80, 1980-81 M.S. Shah & A.M. Kapadia, JJ. GT Ref. Nos. 4, 5 & 6 of 1995 29th January, 2004 Counsel Appeared Manish R. Bhatt, for the Petitioner : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT M.S. Shah, J. : …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dt. 26th Feb., 2003, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”), by which he acquitted non- petitioners—M/s Gagneja Traders and its partners, Shri Joginder Pal and Smt. Sheila Devi, in Criminal Case No. 683/02 of 2002 registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner under ss. 276C and 277 r/w s. 278B of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), with regard to the asst. yr. 1988-89.

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Income Tax Officer vs. Gagneja Traders & Ors. Sections 276C, 277, 278B Asst. Year 1988-89 G.S. Singhvi & Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 431 of 2003 29th January, 2004 Counsel Appeared Dr. N.L. Sharda, for the Appellant JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. : This is a petition for …

Delhi H.C : The assessee is not the absolute owner of the property and is entitled to receive only 30 per cent of the annual rent of the property

High Court Of Delhi Pawha Builders (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 24, 260A Asst. Year 1994-95 B.C. Patel, C.J. & Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. IT Appeal No. 262 of 2003 28th January, 2004 Counsel Appeared B.B. Ahuja with Manish Kumar, for the Petitioner : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal with Ajay Jha, for the Respondent JUDGMENT B.C. …

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Asstt. CED to make valuation of shares of private limited company in accordance with r. 1D of the WT Rules and not in accordance with the general break- up method ?

High Court Of Gujarat Controller Of Estate Duty vs. G.K. Swarup Section ED 36, WT Rule 1D M.S. Shah & A.M. Kapadia, JJ. ED Ref. No. 1 of 2000 28th January, 2004 Counsel Appeared Manish R. Bhatt, for the Petitioner : B.P. Munshi & Ms. Nirali B. Munshi, for the Respondent JUDGMENT M.S. Shah, J. : …

Orissa H.C : The miscellaneous case and the two writ petitions have been filed by one and the same petitioner the Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange and as they are connected with each other, they are being disposed of by this common order and judgment

High Court Of Orissa Bhubaneswar Stock Exchange vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 119, 220(6), ART. 226 Asst. Year 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 A.K. Patnaik & M. Papanna, JJ. Misc. Case No. 3703 of 2003 & Writ Petn. Nos. 4937 & 5356 of 2003 28th January, 2004 Counsel Appeared Jayant Das, A.N. Das, …

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the provisions of s. 186(2) of the IT Act were applicable in the instant case though the order of the ITO in effect was an order refusing to grant registration and not cancelling the registration ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Trimurti Builders Sections 184(7), 185(5), 186(2) Asst. Year 1983-84 M.S. Shah & A.M. Kapadia, JJ. IT Ref. No. 196 of 1991 28th January, 2004 Counsel Appeared Manish R. Bhatt, for the Petitioner JUDGMENT A.M. Kapadia, J. : In exercise of the powers conferred under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, …

S.C : Whether a penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and prosecution under s. 276C of the IT Act are simultaneous?

Supreme Court Of India K.C. Builders & Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Sections 276C, 278B, IPC 34, IPC 120-B, IPC 193, IPC 196, IPC 420 Asst. Year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 B.N. Agrawal & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, JJ. Criminal Appeal Nos. 212 & 213 of 1998 28th January, 2004 Counsel Appeared Ajit K. Sinha, …

Month: January 2004