Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

February 2004

Sec. 260A, Sec. 36(1)(iii), Section 260

S.C : Whether the amount advanced by the appellant to its subsidiary in the relevant year was out of the profit earned by the company for the said year or was from the funds borrowed by the appellant

Avijit Das / February 25, 2004

Supreme Court Of India Motor General Finance Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 36(1)(iii), 260A N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ. […]

Allahabad H.C : the petitioner has also challenged the order dt. 19th March, 1994 (vide Annex. 6 to the petition), by which the return filed under s. 139(1) in compliance of notice under s. 148 has not been accepted

Avijit Das / February 24, 2004

High Court Of Allahabad Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Sections 148 Asst. Year 1990-91 M. Katju

Sec. 244(1A), Sec. 244A, Section 214

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that assessee was entitled to interest under ss. 214 and 244(1A) of the “IT Act in respect of the asst. yrs. 1972-73 to 1976-77 ?

Avijit Das / February 24, 2004

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh (Full Bench) CIT vs. Udhoji Shri Krishandas Sections 214, 244(1A) Asst. Year 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75,

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 37(1), Section 32, Section 37

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the garden building and the furniture thereon were modes of advertisement to the assessee-company and the assessee was entitled to depreciation thereon ?

Avijit Das / February 24, 2004

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Sections 32(1), 37(1) Asst. Year 1971-72 Y.R. Meena

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 37(1)

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the garden building and the furniture thereon were modes of advertisement to the assessee-company and the assessee was entitled to depreciation thereon ?

Avijit Das / February 24, 2004

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Sections 32(1), 37(1) Asst. Year 1971-72 Y.R. Meena

Sec. 139(3), Sec. 139(5)

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee could file a revised return under s. 139(5) claiming a higher amount of business loss to be carried forward after filing the return of loss within the due date prescribed under s. 139 (3)?

Avijit Das / February 23, 2004

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Periyar District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. Sections 139(3), 139(5) Asst. Year 1991-92 A.S.

Sec. 260A, Section 260, Section 69

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The Revenue has filed these two appeals under s. 260A

Avijit Das / February 23, 2004

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Harchand Palace Section 69, 260A Asst. Year 1987-88, 1988-89 N.K. Sud &

Sec. 158BB, Sec. 158BG, Section 158

Karnataka H.C : no order of assessment for the block period shall be passed by the AO without the previous approval of the Jt. CIT in respect of a search initiated under s. 132.

Avijit Das / February 23, 2004

High Court Of Karnataka Rishabchand Bhansali vs. DCIT Sections 158BB, 158BG Asst. Year 1990-91, 1992-93, 1994-95, 1996-97, 1998-99, 1999-2000 R.V.

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order by the ITO for the asst. yr. 1977-78 could not be revised by the CIT under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, on the ground of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue inasmuch as the long-term capital gain on the contribution of capital in the shape of cut precious stones valued at Rs. 15,32,000 had accrued in the asst. yr. 1976-77 and not in the asst. yr. 1977-78, the income by way of deemed capital gain was assessable for previous year on financial year basis?

Avijit Das / February 23, 2004

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. Vimal Kumar Surana Sections 263 Asst. Year 1977-78 Y.R. Meena &

Sec. 254(2), Section 254

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by recalling the entire order on an application under s. 254(2) and in passing the impugned order ?

Avijit Das / February 23, 2004

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Vichtra Construction (P) Ltd. Section 254(2) B.C. Patel, C.J. & Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 … 6 Next →

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

Scroll to Top