Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

January 2008

Karnataka H.C : The parting of part of the profit by the assessee to M/s Mysore Amalgamated Coffee Estates (P) Ltd. amounts to a colourable device adopted by the assessee to avoid tax

Avijit Das / January 23, 2008

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & Anr. vs. V.G. Siddartha Section 143(3) Asst. Year 1994-95 Deepak Verma & K.L. Manjunath, […]

S.C : In these cases, appellants have challenged the validity of r. 3 of the IT Rules, 1962, as amended by the IT (Twenty-second) Amendment Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) which amended the method of computing valuation of perquisites under s. 17(2) of the IT Act, 1961

Avijit Das / January 23, 2008

Supreme Court Of India Bhel Workers Union & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Anr. Section 17(2)(ii), IT Rule 3,

Sec. 115JB, Section 148

Karnataka H.C : The respondent-assessee had filed return of income showing an income of Rs. 4,60,96,960 and was assessed under s. 115JB of the Act

Avijit Das / January 23, 2008

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & ANR. vs. Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. Section 115JB, 148 Asst. Year 2001-02 Deepak Verma

Section 17, Sec. 17(2)

S.C : A three Judge Bench of this Court did not strike down r. 3 of the Rules but read down the rule to make it in line with s. 17(2)(ii)

Avijit Das / January 23, 2008

Supreme Court Of India BHEL Workers Union & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Anr. Section 17(2)(ii), IT RULE 3,

Section 256, Section 47

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,93,546 holding that the amount in question represented capital gains and the said capital gains was exempt under s. 47(iv) of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / January 22, 2008

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Shahibaug Enterprises (P) Ltd. Section 47(iv), 256(2) Asst. Year 1979-80 D.A. Mehta & Z.K.

Wealth Tax Act, Sec. 27A, Section 27

Bombay H.C : Whether a flat in a tenant co-operative housing society which is transferred to the name of an assessee on 17th April, 1993 and which comes to the legal ownership of the assessee only on that date, can be said to be ‘belonging’ to the assessee as on the valuation date of 31st March, 1993 so as to be liable to wealth-tax for the asst. yr. 1993-94

Avijit Das / January 22, 2008

High Court Of Bombay Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth Tax & Anr. Section WT 4(7),

Section 4, Section 69

S.C : the appellant assessee an opportunity of being heard and also giving the appellant assessee an opportunity of filing any evidence in support of its claim that there was no discrepancy in its accounts as pointed out by the AO or as found out by CIT(A) in his order dt. 4th April,1988

Avijit Das / January 22, 2008

Supreme Court Of India Anis Ahmad & Sons vs. CIT & Anr. Section 4, 69 Asst. Year 1984-85 P.P. Naolekar

Sec. 260A, Section 260, Section 45, Section 48

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 68,000 on the foundation that in the sale of calves no cost of acquisition is involved and hence, the question of income by way of capital gain does not arise ?

Avijit Das / January 21, 2008

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh DCIT vs. Smt. Suniti Singh Sections 45, 48, 260A Dipak Misra & S.C. Sinho, JJ.

Sec. 260A, Section 260, Section 45, Section 48

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in holding the decision of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 68,000 on the foundation that in the sale of calves no cost of acquisition is involved and hence, the question of income by way of capital gain does not arise

Avijit Das / January 21, 2008

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh DCIT vs. Smt. Suniti Singh Sections 45, 48, 260A Dipak Misra & S.C. Sinho, JJ.

Sec. 36(1)(iii), Sec. 43(1)

Punjab & Haryana H.C : the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,97,290 on account of interest and Rs. 9,80,000 on account of upfront fees by ignoring Expln. 8 to s. 43(1)

Avijit Das / January 21, 2008

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana (Full Bench) CIT vs. Vardhman Polytex Ltd. Section 36(1)(iii), 43(1), Expln. 8, 260A Asst.

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 4 Next →

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

Scroll to Top