Month: November 2006

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that, granting of deduction under s. 80HHC of the IT Act, 1961, in regard to export of one print of a film for exhibition out of India is valid in law?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. A.V.M. Production Section 80HHC Asst. Year 1993-94 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 667 of 2004 29th November, 2006 Counsel Appeared : N. Muralikumar, for the Appellant : T.R. Senthilkumar, for the Respondent JUDGMENT P.D. DINAKARAN, J. : The above tax case appeal is directed …

Bombay H.C : This writ petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge the order dt. 28th Jan., 1993, directing compulsory purchase of the property owned by the petitioners by passing necessary order under Chapter XX-C of the IT Act, 1961

High Court Of Bombay Jai Nadershah Karani & Anr. vs. C.M. Betgeri, CIT & Ors. Section 269UD H.L. Gokhale & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 290 of 1993 27th November, 2006 Counsel Appeared J.D. Mistri i/b Little & Co., for the Petitioners : R. Asokan & Murlidharan i/b Dadhich & Co., for the Respondents JUDGMENT …

Gauhati H.C : Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the investment in the flat was made out of sale of shares and realisation of loans and advances is based on any materials on record and is not the said finding perverse ?

High Court Of Gauhati CIT vs. Bihariji Construction (India) Ltd. Sections 28, 36(1)(iii) Asst. Years 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 D. Biswas & Smt. A. Hazarika, JJ. IT Appeal No. 11 of 2001 27th November, 2006 Counsel Appeared Bhuyan, for the Appellant : Dr. A.K. Saraf, S.K. Agarwal, K.K. Jain & Ms. N. Hawalia, for the …

AAR : Whether the payment is for services or for the use of the brand ?

Authority For Advance Rulings International Hotel Licensing Company S.A.R.L., In Re Sections 9(1)(i), 9(1)(vii) Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J., Chairman A.S. Narang & A. Sinha, Members AAR No. 674 of 2005 27th November, 2006 Counsel Appeared Nishith Desai, for the Applicant : T.N. Chopra, for the CIT concerned Ruling Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J., Chairman : …

Gauhati H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, deduction under s. 80HHC is not to be allowed from the composite income of the assessee before application of r. 8(1) of the IT Rules, 1962 ?

High Court Of Gauhati Williamson Financial Services Ltd. vs. CIT & ANR. Section 32AB, 80HHC Asst. Year 1990-91 P.G. Agarwal & Smt. A. Hazarika, JJ. IT Appeal No. 9 of 2003 27th November, 2006 Counsel Appeared : Dr. A.K. Saraf, for the Assessee : U. Bhuyan, for the Revenue JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. : Heard Dr. …

Bombay H.C : the 1st respondent had arrived at the correct decision earlier by applying his mind and there was no reason to reopen the assessment. It was submitted that it amounted to a change of opinion which was not permissible

High Court Of Bombay IL & FS Investment Managers Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. Sections 147, 148 Asst. Year 2003-04 H.L. Gokhale & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 2703 of 2006 27th November, 2006 Counsel Appeared J.D. Mistri with Rajesh Shah, for the Petitioner : R.K. Sharma, for the Respondents ORDER H.L. Gokhale, J. : …
Malcare WordPress Security