Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

March 2004

Section 147, Section 148

Bombay H.C : The petitioner is a public limited company having its registered office at Mumbai and factory at Nasik (hereinafter referred to as “assessee” for short). On 29th Nov., 1996, the assessee filed return of income for the asst. yr. 1996-97 and claimed depreciation @ 25 per cent in its tin packaging unit

Avijit Das / March 31, 2004

High Court Of Bombay Ador Technopack Ltd. vs. Dr. Zakir Hussein, DCIT Sections 147, 148 Asst. Year 1996-97 V.C. Daga […]

Section 80HHC, Section 80HHF

Bombay H.C : Whether or not the appellant-assessee (hereinafter referred to as the “assessee”) was entitled to claim deduction under Section 80HHC, or in the alternative, under Section 80-O of the IT Act, 1961

Avijit Das / March 29, 2004

High Court Of Bombay Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. Sections 80HHC, 80HHF Asst. Year

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Madhya Pradesh H.C :Whether possession of heroin in contravention of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, can be treated to be stock-in-trade possessed by a medical practitioner ?

Avijit Das / March 29, 2004

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench CIT vs. Dr. T.A. Qureshi Section 37, Expln. Asst. Year 1986-87 A.M.

Sec. 28(ii), Section 4

Madras H.C : The assessee is engaged in varied trading and service activities as clearing and forwarding agents, electrical and engineering (structural) contractors, marketing of branded products, etc. In 1979, the assessee was appointed as one of the selling agents of HMM Ltd.

Avijit Das / March 29, 2004

High Court Of Madras Parry & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT & Anr. Sections 4, 28(ii)(c) Asst. Year 1988-89, 1989-90 A.S.

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that because of the note left in return regarding cash compensatory support, the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable in the case in spite of amendment to s. 28 of IT Act by way of insertion of cl. (iiib) ?

Avijit Das / March 28, 2004

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench CIT vs. Premier Proteins Ltd. Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1989-90 Deepak Verma

Patna H.C : The petitioner has filed the present writ application for quashing the order dt. 18th March, 1991, passed by the respondent-Dy. CIT, Commercial Taxes, Government of Bihar, Patna, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for payment of interest with regard to Rs. 2 lakhs, which was deposited by the petitioner towards advance tax, in respect of the agricultural income-tax (Rs. 82,000 on 28th March, 1979, and Rs. 1,18,000 on 30th March, 1979).

Avijit Das / March 26, 2004

High Court Of Patna Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. State Of Bihar & Ors. Nagendra Rai & S. Nayer

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), dt. 31st March, 2003 by which proceedings under s. 147

Avijit Das / March 26, 2004

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Shripal Jain vs. Income Tax Officer Civil Writ Petn. No. 1444 of 2004 Sections

Patna H.C : The present application has been filed for quashing the order dt. 12th March, 1991, as contained in Annex. 10, passed by the CIT, Patna, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for waiver of penalty and interest under s. 273A

Avijit Das / March 25, 2004

High Court Of Patna Ply King vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxesa Section 273A Nagendra Rai & S. Nayer Hussain,

Income Tax Case Laws

Karnataka H.C : In terms of a show-cause notice dt. 26th Feb., 1998, the Jt. CIT (Agrl. IT and CV), Bangalore, called upon the appellant-firm to show cause why assessment order dt. 19th April, 1996, for the asst. yr. 1995-96 be not set aside and the Dy. Commr. of Agrl. IT, Chickmagalur, directed to re-do the assessment on the lines set out in the show- cause notice.

Avijit Das / March 25, 2004

High Court Of Karnataka Shankaranarayana Construction Co. & Ors. vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr. Section Kar Agrl. IT Act,

Section 220, Section 237, Section 244

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The petitioner has received a refund voucher from the Department on account as principal and interest under s. 244(1A)

Avijit Das / March 23, 2004

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Kashmir Singh Bhangal vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr. Sections 220(2), 237, 244(1A) N.K.

Post pagination

1 2 … 6 Next →

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

Scroll to Top