September 2005

Section 145

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) thereby sustaining addition of only Rs. 2,71,104 on the basis of application of GP rate even when the AO had (made) specific addition of Rs. 66,57,128 and Rs. 8,12,467, respectively, on account of sale of Kattha and Cutch outside regular books of account of the assessee ?

/

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench CIT vs. Saatal Kattha & Chemicals (P)Ltd. Section 145(2) Asst. Year 1989-90

Sec. 269UD

Bombay H.C: This petition is directed against the order dt. 27th April, 1993 (Exhibit “F”), passed by the first respondent, the Appropriate Authority, appointed by the Central Government under s. 269UB of the IT Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) exercising right of pre-emptive purchase under s. 269UD(1) of the Act of the property in question owned by the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 for the apparent consideration of Rs. 24,00,000

/

High Court Of Bombay Smt. Pratibha Sheth & Ors. vs. Appropriate Authority & Anr. Section 269UD V.C. Daga & J.P.

Section 32, Section 32A

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was justified in upholding the findings of CIT(A) directing allowance of the assessee’s claim for investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961 at Rs. 3,79,285 on new machineries installed in the branch set for doing printing job on tin plates.

/

High Court Of Allahabad : Lucknow Bench CIT vs. Daljeet Tyres Section 32A Asst. Year 1989-90 Pradeep Kant & R.P.

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security