Month: March 2004

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

High Court Of Bombay Ador Technopack Ltd. vs. Dr. Zakir Hussein, DCIT Sections 147, 148 Asst. Year 1996-97 V.C. Daga & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 2228 of 2003 31st March, 2004 Counsel Appeared B.P. Pandit with P.P. Pandit & P.P. Prabhu, for the Petitioner : R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetly, for the Respondent JUDGMENT …

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

High Court Of Bombay Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. Sections 80HHC, 80HHF Asst. Year 1996-97 V.C. Daga & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 714 of 2000 29th March, 2004 Counsel Appeared Shivram with K. Gopal, P.K. Parida, S.N. Inamdar with P.Y. Vaidya, V.H. Patil, A.P. Sathe & Hiro Rai, …

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 ?

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench CIT vs. Dr. T.A. Qureshi Section 37, Expln. Asst. Year 1986-87 A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ. IT Appeal No. 33 of 1999 29th November, 2004 Counsel Appeared : R.L. Jain with Ku. V. Mandlik, for the Appellant : D.K. Chhabra, for the Respondent JUDGMENT A.M. sapre, …

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.

High Court Of Madras Parry & Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT & Anr. Sections 4, 28(ii)(c) Asst. Year 1988-89, 1989-90 A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy & P.K. Misra, JJ. Tax Case Appeal Nos. 42 & 46 of 2002 29th March, 2004 Counsel Appeared Philip George, for the Appellant : Mrs. Pushya Sitharaman, for the Respondents JUDGMENT A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J. : …

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) ?

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench CIT vs. Premier Proteins Ltd. Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1989-90 Deepak Verma & A.M. Sapre, JJ. IT Appeal No. 89 of 1999 3rd May, 2005 Counsel Appeared R.L. Jain with Ku. Veena Mandlik, for the Appellant : G.M. Chaphekar with D.S. Kale, for the Respondent ORDER A.M. Sapre, …

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).

High Court Of Patna Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. State Of Bihar & Ors. Nagendra Rai & S. Nayer Hussain, JJ. CWJC No. 7727 of 1991 26th March, 2004 Counsel Appeared : Y.V. Giri, Jyoti Saran & A.K. Srivastava, for the Petitioner : B.N. Singh & Ram Priya Sharan Singh, for the Respondents JUDGMENT By …

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

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Shripal Jain vs. Income Tax Officer Civil Writ Petn. No. 1444 of 2004 Sections 147, 148 Asst. Year 1996-97 26th March, 2004 Counsel Appeared P.C. Jain, for the Petitioner JUDGMENT N.K. Sud, J. : Challenge in this writ petition is to the validity of notice under s. 148 of the …

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

High Court Of Patna Ply King vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxesa Section 273A Nagendra Rai & S. Nayer Hussain, JJ. CWJC No. 2255 of 1991 25th March, 2004 Counsel Appeared Vikas Jain & Tej Bahadur Roy, for the Petitioner : S.K. Sharan, for the Respondent JUDGMENT By the court : Heard learned counsel for the …

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.

High Court Of Karnataka Shankaranarayana Construction Co. & Ors. vs. State Of Karnataka & Anr. Section Kar Agrl. IT Act, 1957 19A Asst. Year 1995-96 Tirath S. Thakur & Huluvadi G. Ramesh, JJ. Writ Appeal Nos. 5860 to 5862 of 1999 & 4153 of 1998 25th March, 2004 Counsel Appeared S.S. Naganand for M/s Sundaraswamy Ramdas …
Malcare WordPress Security