Punjab & Haryana H.C : the CIT(A) was not obliged to do so, on a motion made by the ITO in that regard.
High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Goel Die Cast Ltd. vs. CIT (APPEALS) & Anr. Section 251 Asst. Year 2004-05 […]
Section 251
April 2007
Section 256
Bombay H.C : Where Revenue audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department.
High Court Of Bombay: Nagpur Bench CIT vs. Arvind Nilkanth Kedar Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 J.P. Devadhar
Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i), Section 80P
Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the income earned by the assessee-co-operative society from recovery of pay made from the staff, recovery of training cost and security forfeiture from staff is not attributable to its business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members and hence not deductible under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 ?
High Court Of Allahabad Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. CIT Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Asst. Year 1988-89 R.K. Agrawal & Ms. Bharati
Section 32
Punjab & Haryana H.C : Harvesting combines were entitled to 30 per cent depreciation even before amendment entry of 24th July, 1978
High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs.Pawan Kumat Garg Section 32 Asst. Year 1975-76 M.M. Kumar & Rajesh Bindal
Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 161, Section 162
Karnataka H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that there is no concealment and penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable ?
High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Master Sunil R. Kalro Section 161, 162, 271(1)(c) R. Gururajan & Anand Byrareddy, JJ.
Section 256
Bombay H.C : There is no material to hold that the difference between the duty assessed by the Customs Department under s. 30(b) of the Sea Customs Act and the contract price shown by the assessee in the contract resulted in any additional income liable to income-tax to the assessee in the face of the finding of ‘proven underinvoicing’ by the assessee, given by the Supreme Court
High Court Of Bombay : Nagpur Bench CIT vs. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1953-54
Section 256
Bombay H.C : The possession taken on 1st April, 1979 was as per s.16 of the Land Acquisition Act and the lands also vested in Government from 1st April, 1979 and the amount of compensation became due on that very date
High Court Of Bombay : Nagpur Bench Mrs. Usha Wamanrao Charde vs. CIT Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1981-82, 1982-83 J.P.
Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 206A, Section 206
Delhi H.C : No new material has come on record nor any new information has been received by the AO and it was only a case of fresh application of mind by the AO to the same sets of facts which tantamount to a change of opinion and therefore, it cannot be the basis for reopening of a completed assessment and the Tribunal also deleted the additions on merits
High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Feather Foam Enterprises (P) Ltd. Section 260A Assessment year 1996-97 Madan B. Lokur &
Income Tax Case Laws
Karnataka H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the Explanation below r. 1 of Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 along with the provisions of r. 1A of the said Schedule, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that ‘unappropriated profits’ shown in the P&L a/c of the head office of the assessee company at United Kingdom cannot be excluded from the ‘capital’ to be computed for the purpose of surtax assessment ?
High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Eskayef Ltd. Section SURTAX Sch. II, R. 1(III) Asst. Year 1980-81 R. Gururajan &
Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 158BD
Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,00,094 made by the AO on account of unexplained investments made by the assessee in the purchase of plots, properties and construction of house on the basis of seized documents ?
High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Ramesh Bhayana Section 158BD Block period 1988-89 to 1998-99 M.M. Kumar &
