Month: April 2006

Delhi H.C : All that we need mention is that pursuant to an order made by the CIT(A) passed on 31st March, 2004, the GTO computed the amount of gift- tax payable by the petitioner and charged interest under s. 220(2) r/w s. 32(2) of the GT Act w.e.f. 17th May, 1995

High Court Of Delhi Mansarovar Investments Ltd. vs. CIT Section GT 24(1) T.S. Thakur & Shiv Narayan Dhingra, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 8287 of 2005 27th April, 2006 Counsel Appeared B.B. Ahuja with Manish Kumar, for the Petitioner : R.D. Jolly, Vishnu Sharma & Ajay Jha, for the Respondent ORDER T.S. Thakur, J. : Issue rule. …

Gujarat H.C : Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the ITO to allow to carry forward business loss, though time was not extended by the ITO for filing of return ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Swastik Sanitary Works Ltd. Sections 32, 32A, 43(1), 72, 139(1) Asst. Year 1985-86 J.M. Panchal & Bankim N. Mehta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 180 of 1995 27th April, 2006 Counsel Appeared : Manish R. Bhatt & Ms. Monaben M. Bhatt, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT J.M. …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in law in quashing the order under s. 263 of the IT Act passed by the CIT ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Mangilal Didwania Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1990-91 Rajesh Balia & R.P. Vyas, JJ. IT Ref. Case No. 104 of 1998 26th April, 2006 Counsel Appeared K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant : Sanjeev Johari, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Rajesh Balia, J. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The application …

Gauhati H.C : Whether s. 43B of the Act empowers the assessing authority to make addition to the income of the assessee of the amount representing the employees’ contribution to the provident fund, which although credited to the employees’ account but not deposited during the relevant accounting year and also having not been claimed as a deduction in the P&L a/c of the relevant assessment year ?

High Court Of Gauhati The Assam Tribune vs. CIT & Anr. Sections 43B, 254(1), ITAT RULE 11 Asst. Year 1991-92 B.S. Reddy, C.J. & B.P. Katakey, J. IT Appeal No. 4 of 2001 25th April, 2006 Counsel Appeared Dr. A.K. Saraf, K.K. Gupta, A.K. Agarwal & S. Saikia, for the Assessee : U. Bhuyan, for the …

Delhi H.C : The AO held that this repayment was contrary to the provisions of s. 269T of the IT Act, which inter alia, required that such repayment could not be made except by an account payee cheque or an account payee bank draft drawn in the name of the person who had advanced the loan

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Vikramajit Singh Sections 269T, 271E Asst. Year 2001-02 T.S. Thakur & Shiv Narayan Dhingra, JJ. IT Appeal No. 589 of 2006 24th April, 2006 Counsel Appeared Ms. P.L. Bansal & Vishnu Sharma, for the Appellant : Yogesh K. Jagia, for the Respondent ORDER By the court : For the asst. …
Malcare WordPress Security