Month: April 2008

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 18,00,000 made by the AO under s. 68 of the Act, in respect of unaccounted cash credit ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Vinod Swarupchandra Mehta Section 68 Y.R. Meena, C.J. & J.C. Upadhyaya, J. IT Appeal No. 1257 of 2007 24th April, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Manish R. Bhatt, for the Appellant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT By the court : The following question is proposed for admission of this appeal …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether capital value of such deemed interest to the extent it has been charged lesser than the market rate can be considered as consideration for grant of lease in respect of which the capital gains has to be computed ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Section 45(1), 48 Asst. Year 1993-94 N.P. Gupta & Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, JJ. IT Appeal No. 63 of 2005 23rd April, 2008 Counsel Appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant : N.M. Ranka with N.K. Jain & S. Johari, for the Respondent ORDER N.P. Gupta, …

Delhi H.C : the assessee was not financially sound and was a loss-making concern and therefore, instead of claiming the entire deduction for product development expenses as a revenue expenditure in one year, it claimed the deduction on a deferred revenue basis

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Harig Crank Shafts Ltd. Section 35D, 37(1), 260A Asst. Year 1997-98, 1998-99 Madan B. Lokur & Manmohan Singh, JJ. IT Appeal No. 550 of 2006 23rd April, 2008 Counsel appeared : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, for the Appellant : Rajan Bhatia, for the Respondent JUDGMENT MADAN B. LOKUR, J. : …

Gujarat H.C : The assessee company was not entitled to deduction under s. 80-I for lack of satisfaction of the condition laid down in cl. (ii) of sub-s. (2) of s. 80-I of the IT Act

High Court Of Gujarat Himson Fadis Machinery (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 80-I Asst. Year 1987-88, 1988-89 D.A. Mehta & Z.K. Saiyed, JJ. IT Ref. No. 17 of 1998 15th April, 2008 Counsel Appeared : R.K. Patel, for the Applicant : Manish R. Bhatt, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.A. Mehta, J. : The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Is the Hon’ble Tribunal legally justified in holding that in the case of contractors profit can be worked out on estimate basis at 12 per cent of the gross receipts, when the assessee claims to be maintaining proper books of account which have duly been audited by a chartered accountant, but does not produce complete books for verification before the AO?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Surinder Pal Nayar Section 44AD, 145(1) Asst. Year 1999-2000, 2000-01 Satish Kumar Mittal & Rakesh Kumar Garg, JJ. C.M. No. 18809-CII of 2007 and IT Appeal Nos. 391 and 602 of 2007 10th April, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Sanjiv Bansal, for the Appellant JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned orders A-1 and A-3 are legally sustainable in the eyes of law ?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana The New Friends Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd. vs. CIT & ANR. Section 5, 45(5)(b) Asst. Year 2001-02 Satish Kumar Mittal & Rakesh Kumar Garg, JJ. IT Appeal No. 360 of 2007 10th April, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Akshay Bhan, for the Appellant : Yogesh Putney, for the Respondents. JUDGMENT …

Karnataka H.C : Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the statements given by the assessee on oath during search could not be used as evidentiary value in assessment, as the assessee had retracted these statements ?

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & ANR. vs. Dr. N. Thippa Setty Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 1989-90, 1990-91, 1993-94 Deepak Verma & Anand Byrareddy, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 102, 105 & 106 of 2002 9th April, 2008 Counsel Appeared : M.V. Seshachala, for the Appellants : A. Shankar, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J. …

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the AO was not justified in reopening the assessment on the basis of the valuation report obtained by him subsequent to the date of completion of assessment ?

High Court Of Bombay Commissioner Of Wealth TAX vs. Sona Properties (P) Ltd. Section WT 16A, 17(1) Asst. Years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1991-92, 1992-93 F.I. Rebello & R.S. Mohite, JJ. WT Appeal Nos. 163, 174, 188, 195 & 196 of 2004 7th April, 2008 Counsel Appeared : A.S. Rao with P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant : A.K. …
Malcare WordPress Security