Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

January 2007

Sec. 260A, Section 260, Section 68

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The assessee is an individual engaged in the business of manufacture of furniture in village Burail, showed income of Rs. 51,675 which comprises of business income of Shri Mohd. Aslam Khan (minor) at Rs. 26,400 including rental income

Avijit Das / January 18, 2007

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Jeeta Khan Section 68, 260A M.M. Kumar & Vinod K. Sharma, JJ. […]

Section 72, Section 72A

Orissa H.C : Amalgamation of OMC Alliance Ltd., the erstwhile subsidiary company with Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. became effective from 30th Aug., 1991 and not from 1st April, 1986 and consequent denying the claim of OMC for treating all the operation of the erstwhile subsidiary as that of the patent company, namely, OMC from 1st April, 1986 and resultant loss.

Avijit Das / January 18, 2007

High Court Of Orissa Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT Section 72A Asst. Years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 A.K. Ganguly

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The mistake of not calculating the capital as on the first day of the previous year, when the assessment order was passed for the purpose of computation of deduction admissible under s. 80J, is not a mistake apparent from record which can be rectified by the ITO under s. 154

Avijit Das / January 17, 2007

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Sunder Dass Setia Section 154 Asst. Year 1974-75 M.M. Kumar & Rajesh

Sec. 37(3), Section 215, Section 37

Punjab & Haryana H.C : All the business tours undertaken by an employee during the previous year should be taken together for determining whether the amount of expenditure admissible under r. 6D has been exceeded or not

Avijit Das / January 17, 2007

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Leader Valves Ltd. Section 37(3), 215, IT RULE 6D Asst. Year 1981-82

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in annulling the order of the ITO under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147(a) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / January 17, 2007

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Air Craft Radio Corporation Section 147 Asst. Year 1969-70 M.M. Kumar &

Sec. 139(4), Sec. 139(5), Sec. 144B, Section 139, Section 153

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the letter dt. 12th Nov., 1979 claiming further relief under ss. 358 and 80J could not be considered to be a revised return for the purpose of justifying the ITO’s proceeding under s. 144B ?

Avijit Das / January 17, 2007

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Mittal Alloys & Steels vs. CIT Section 139(4), 139(5), 144B, 153, Expln. 1(iv) Asst.

Sec. 260A, Section 22, Section 5

Delhi H.C : Appellant’s case is that he received the arrears of rent during the financial year 1999-2000 on account of arrears of rent for the period 1st April, 1994 to 31st March, 1999 which, in fact, was damages and mesne profits received by the appellant in the compromise settlement arrived in the suit filed by the appellant against the insurance company for vacating the premises

Avijit Das / January 17, 2007

High Court Of Delhi B.M. Gupta & Sons (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Sections 5(1)(a), 22, 260A Madan

Kerala H.C : Registration under s. 12A is not granted

Avijit Das / January 16, 2007

High Court Of Kerala Adarsha Vidyanidhi Trust vs. CIT Section 12A K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. OP No. 24964 of 1998

Punjab & Haryana H.C : the assessee was not liable to pay interest under s. 216 in respect of the deficient payment of advance tax in the first two instalments for the asst. yr. 1982-83

Avijit Das / January 16, 2007

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Upper India Steel Manufacturing & Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Section 216 Asst.

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Construction, manufacture or production of ropeways was not the business of the assessee but it was only a means for transporting the timber, etc. of a third party from one place to another and consequentially not entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A

Avijit Das / January 15, 2007

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Mrs. P. Kropivnik vs. CIT Section 32A Asst. Year 1980-81 M.M. Kumar & Rajesh

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 3 4 5 … 7 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top