Month: December 2007

Andhra Pradesh H.C : The word ‘record’ used in s. 263(1) of the Act would not mean the record as it stands at the time of examination by the CIT, but it means the record as it stands at the time the order in question was passed by the ITO ?

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh M.S. Raju vs. DCIT Sections 37(1), 264 Asst. Years 2001-02, 2002-03 Bilal Nazki, ACTG. C.J. & Ramesh Ranganathan, J. IT Appeal No. 74 of 2007 and Writ Petn. No. 3647 of 2007 31st December, 2007 Counsel Appeared : A.V. Krishna Koundinya, for the Assessee : None, for the Revenue JUDGMENT Ramesh …

S.C : Allowability of investment allowance under s. 32A

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Lucas T.V.S. Ltd. Section 32A, 43A Asst. Year 1989-90, 1991-92, 1992-93 Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 5950 to 5952 of 2007 14th December, 2007 Counsel Appeared : P.P. Malhotra & Dr. R.G. Padia with Arijit Prasad, Ms. Shweta and B.V. Balaram Das, for the Appeallnt …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in its interpretation of Expln. 5 to s. 271(1)(c) so as to hold that penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was not leviable in the case, contrary to the findings given by CIT(A) ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Kanhaiyalal Section 271(1)(c), Expln. 5, Asst. Year 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 N.P. Gupta & Munishwar Nath Bhandari, JJ. IT Appeal No. 40 & 42 of 2003 13th December, 2007 Counsel Appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant : Sanjeev Johari, for the Respondent ORDER By the court : These …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the learned Tribunal had material and were right in law in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 3,03,475 being commission paid to M/s Laxmi Stone (P) Ltd. ?

High Court Of Rajasthan Laxmi Engineering Industries vs. ITO Sections 37(1), 40A(2) N.P. Gupta & Munishwar Nath Bhandari, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 57 to 59 of 2003 13th December, 2007 Counsel Appeared : Sanjeev Johari, for the Appellant : K.K. Bissa, for the Respondent ORDER By the court : These three appeals seek to challenge the …

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal, was right in law in allowing the miscellaneous petition filed by the assessee, even though Voluntary Disclosure Scheme application was filed by the assessee after the date of search is valid ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. D.B. Finance (P) Ltd. Section 254(2) K. Raviraja Pandian & Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1501 of 2007 12th December, 2007 Counsel Appeared : J. Naresh Kumar, for the Appellant JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, J. : This appeal is filed against the order dt. 27th Dec., 2006 …

S.C : 40 apportionment under r.8(1) or from 40 per cent profits on sales taxable as business income.Rule 8(1) of the said rule provides that 40 per cent of the composite income from sale of tea, grown and manufactured, arrived at on making of the apportionment “shall be deemed to be income liable to tax”. Assessees exported tea in the accounting year. They were entitled to deduction under s. 80HHC

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Willamson Financial Services & Ors. Section 2(1A), 10(1), 80HHC, IT Rule 8, Art. 245, Art. 366(1), Sch. VII, List I, Entry 82, Sch. VII, List II, Entry 46 S.H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 6719 & 6720 of 2004, 3803 to 3808 of 2005, 1021 of …

Delhi H.C : The notional interest on refundable interest free deposit received by the assessee in respect of a shop let out on rent was neither taxable as business profit under s. 28(iv) of the IT Act, 1961 (‘Act’) nor income from house property under s. 23(1)(a)

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Asian Hotels Ltd. Section 23(1)(a), 28(iv), 260A Asst. Year 1995-96, 2000-01 Madan B. Lokur & Dr. S. Muralidhar, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 794 & 998 of 2007 10th December, 2007 Counsel Appeared : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, for the Appellant: M.P. Rastogi & K.N. Ahuja, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. …

S.C : whether the Maritime Board is entitled to the status of a charitable institution under s. 11 of the 1961 Act. We may clarify that in this case we are concerned with registration and not with application of income

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Gujarat Maritime Board Section 2(15), 11, 12A S.H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 5656 of 2007 5th December, 2007 ORDER By the court : Leave granted. Gujarat Maritime Board is a statutory authority constituted under s. 3(2) of Gujarat Maritime Board Act, 1981. Before 13th Nov., …
Malcare WordPress Security