Month: January 2006

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that only 90 per cent of the profit element in the dyeing charges received by the assessee could be reduced from the profits of business for computation of deduction under s. 80HHC ignoring the plain terminology of Expln. (baa) to s. 80HHC under which 90 per cent of the miscellaneous receipts had to be reduced from the profits of business in arriving at the deduction under s. 80HHC ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Kiran Processors Sections 80HHC, Expln. (BAA) P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 5 of 2006 31st January, 2006 Counsel Appeared : N. Muralikumaran, for the Appellant JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, J. : The above tax case appeal is directed against the order of the Tribunal in …

Madras H.C : Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had enough material to hold, and was right in holding that the assessee was justified in receiving deposits exceeding Rs. 20,000 in cash when the depositors did not have bank accounts ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Kundrathur Finance & Chit Co. Sections 269SS, 271D, 273B Asst. Years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 185 of 2004 & 1542 to 1544 of 2005 30th January, 2006 Counsel Appeared J. Narayanaswamy, for the Appellant JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, J. : …

Karnataka H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the levy of interest under s. 7C of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?

High Court Of Karnataka Mcdowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT Section SURTAX 7C Asst. Year 1982-83 P. Vishwanatha Shetty & C.R. Kumaraswamy, JJ. IT Ref. Case No. 88 of 1999 30th January, 2006 Counsel Appeared S. Parthasarathi, for the Applicant : M.V. Seshachala, for the Respondent ORDER P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J. : The assessee is a …

Madras H.C : The assessee had rightly exercised its option under s. 10B(5) of the Act vide its letter dt. 25th Dec., 1993 and also by its note appearing on the memo of total income and in allowing exemption under s. 10B

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Tamil Nadu Jai Bharath Mills Ltd. Section 10B Asst. Years 1995-96, 1996-97 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 1610 & 1611 of 2005 and TCMP No. 1347 of 2005 30th January, 2006 Counsel Appeared J. Narayanasamy, for the Appellant JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, J. : The …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to claim investment allowance under s. 32A on an expenditure amounting to Rs. 2,23,415 as held by the Tribunal ?

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Narayan Glass Works Section 32A Asst. Year 1978-79 R.K. Agrawal & Saroj Bala, JJ. IT Ref. No. 128 of 1986 3rd January, 2006 Counsel Appeared R.K. Upadhyaya, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee JUDGMENT By the court : The Tribunal, Delhi Bench “A”, New Delhi, has referred the …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether (Where) a return was filed under the Amnesty Scheme, whether a regular order of assessment based on an earlier return could have been passed after a subsequent filing of such Amnesty Scheme

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench Ashok M. Patel vs. Union Of India Section 143 Asst. Year 1981-82, 1984-85 A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ. IT Appeal No. 12 of 2003 27th January, 2006 Counsel Appeared : S.C. Bagadia with D.K. Chhabra, for the Appellant : R.L. Jain with Ku. Veena Mandlik, for …

Madras H.C : Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that excise duty and sales-tax do not form part of the total turnover for the purpose of calculation of benefit under s. 80HHC ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Sri Jayajothi & Co. Ltd. Sections 69, 80HHC Asst. Years 1986-87 to 1993-94, 1995-96, 1998-99, 1999-2000 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 1524 to 1527 of 2005 & TCMP Nos. 1276 to 1278 of 2005 27th January, 2006 Counsel Appeared T. Ravikumar, for the Appellant …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : whether appeal involves any substantial question of law out of the impugned order of the Tribunal or in other words, whether two questions proposed by the appellant involve any substantial questions so as to admit the appeal. It is not in dispute that the pre-requisite of admitting any appeal under s. 260A

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench Sanjay vs. CIT Sections 69, 260A Asst. Year 1998-99 A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ. IT Appeal No. 107 of 2005 27th January, 2006 Counsel Appeared P.M. Choudhary, for the Appellant ORDER A.M. SAPRE, J. : This is an appeal filed by the Revenue (IT Department) (sic–assessee) …
Malcare WordPress Security