Month: March 2008

Madras H.C : the petitioner to verify the TDS certificates with the Hong Kong and the United States authorities to sustain the claim of the petitioner that tax has been deducted at source in those two countries

High Court Of Madras V. Ganesh vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. Section 90, 91 K. Raviraja Pandian & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 7221 of 2007 & Misc. Petn. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2007 28th March, 2008 Counsel Appeared : A.P. Srinivas, for the Petitioner : N. Muralikumaran, for the …

Delhi H.C : According to learned counsel for the Revenue, a search was carried out in the premises of the assessee and several documents were recovered relating to loans totalling Rs. 43,86,325 which, according to the Revenue were not disclosed by the assessee

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Modern Engineering Works Section 158BA, Block period from 1st April, 1990 to 19th March, 2001 Madan B. Lokur & V.B. Gupta, JJ. IT Appeal No. 739 of 2007 18th March, 2008 Counsel Appeared : R.D. Jolly, for the Appellant : Ms. Poonam Ahuja, for the Respondent JUDGMENT By the court …

Rajasthan H.C : whether it is the requirement of law that the specific provision under which the interest is to be charged should be mentioned in the assessment order or not ?

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench Hari Narain Soni vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr. Section 234A, 234B, 234C Asst. Year 1990-91 R.S. Chauhan, J. Writ Petn. No. 4849 of 2001 13th March, 2008 Counsel Appeared : J.K. Ranka, for the Petitioner : J.K. Singhi & Anuroop Singhi, for the Respondents JUDGMENT R.S. Chouhan, J. …

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduct the entire amount of interest as revenue expenditure under s. 37 of the IT Act ?

Supreme Court Of India Kerala Road Lines vs. CIT Sections 37(1), 254(1), 256(1) Ashok Bhan & J.M. Panchal, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 5308 & 5309 of 2002 12th March, 2008 JUDGMENT ASHOK BHAN, J. : These two appeals have been filed by the appellant assessee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) with the leave of the …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether a return filed under the IT Act by a company is mandatorily required to be signed by its managing director under s. 140(c) of the Act or it can be filed by an authorized signatory duly appointed by a resolution of the board of directors ?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Hind Samachar Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Section 139(9), 140(c), 239, 240, 292B Asst. Year 2000-01, 2001-2002, 2002-03 M.M. Kumar & Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 2652, 2715 & 16063 of 2006 11th March, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Sanjay Bansal with Parvesh Saini, Parshant Bansal …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law particularly keeping in view the legislative history of nationalization, first acquisition and later nationalization of M/s Metal Corporation of India Ltd. and consequently, appointing assessee as administrator, that the amount of Rs. 122.79 lacs paid to M/s Metal Corporation of India for period 10th Jan., 1966 to 1st of August 1966 and further amount required to be paid on 2nd Aug., 1976 to the said M/s Metal Corporation of India is a revenue expenditure allowable under s. 43(3) (sic) of the IT Act ?” Thus, the only question, which requires to be gone into by us is, as to whether the amount of Rs. 122.79 lacs, paid to M/s Metal Corporation of India for the period 10th Jan.,1966 to 1st Aug., 1966, and further amount required to be paid on 2nd Aug., 1976, to the said M/s Metal Corporation of India, is a revenue expenditure

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Section 37(1) N.P. Gupta & Deo Narayan Thanvi, JJ. IT Appeal No. 22 of 2003 4th March, 2008 Counsel appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant : Anjay Kothari, for the Respondent ORDER By the court : This appeal has been filed by the Revenue, against the …
Malcare WordPress Security