Month: June 2008

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remitting back to the AO to decide the issue after obtaining necessary details for verification, even though the expenditure for the purchase of software is capital in nature ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Sundaram Clayton Ltd. Section 37(1), 80HHC Asst. Year 2001-02 K. Raviraja Pandian & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 369 & 370 of 2008 and Misc. Petn. No.1 of 2008 30th June, 2008 Counsel Appeared : J. Naresh Kumar, for the Appellant JUDGMENT K. RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, 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 deleting the penalty levied under s. 272A(2)(g) of the IT Act ?

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Ashapura Garments (P) Ltd. Section 203(1), 272A(2)(g), Rule 31 F.I. Rebello & K.U. Chandiwal, JJ. IT Appeal No. 60 of 2008 26th June, 2008 Counsel Appeared : A.D. Kango, for the Appellant : S.G. Dalal, for the Respondent JUDGMENT F.I. Rebello, J. : Revenue has preferred this appeal against the …

Gujarat H.C : The petitioner had purchased an immovable property called ‘Rupam Talkies’ under two different sale deeds dt. 28th Sept., 1992

High Court Of Gujarat Suvidha Association vs. L.R. Meena, Additional Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) & Ors. Section 132(1), 158BC, 127 D.A. Mehta & H.B. Antani, JJ. Special Civil Appln. No. 4148 of 1997 26th June, 2008 Counsel Appeared : K.H. Kaji, for the Petitioner : Manish R. Bhatt, for the Respondents JUDGMENT D.A. MEHTA, J. …

Himachal Pradesh H.C : the poultry sheds and water lines for sheds as ‘plant’ for the purposes of depreciation allowance and investment allowance under the IT Act

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh CIT vs. Shivalik Hatcheries (P) Ltd. Section 32, 32A, 43(3), IT Rule, Appendix I, Part I, Item III(iv) Asst. Year 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 Deepak Gupta & Kuldip Singh, JJ. IT Ref. No. 6 of 1996 24th June, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Vinay Kuthiala, for the Petitioner : P.J. Pardiwala & …

Gujarat H.C : the assessees are not entitled to the benefit of the Scheme since the payments made by them were not in terms of the Scheme, we direct the Revenue authorities to refund or adjust the amounts already deposited by the assessees in purported compliance with the provisions of the Scheme to the concerned assessees in accordance with law.

High Court Of Gujarat Hakimchand D. Chotai vs. CIT Section 1997 FA 66, 1997 FA 68(2) D.A. Mehta & H.B. Antani, JJ. Special Civil Appln. No. 445 of 2000 17th June, 2008 Counsel appeared : S.N. Soparkar with V.K. Patel, for the Petitioner : Manish R. Bhatt, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.A. Mehta, J. : This …

Madras H.C : the appellant is not entitled to deduction under s. 80HHC of the IT Act, without appreciating the fact that what is sought to be excluded in terms of s. 28(iii)(d) is only the profit on the transfer of DEPB licence and not the entire sale consideration thereof

High Court Of Madras DCIT vs. Asvini Fisheries (P) Ltd. Section 28(iiid), 80HHC, 260A K. Raviraja Pandian & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 368 of 2008 16th June, 2008 Counsel appeared : R. Venkatanarayanan, for the Appellant JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, J. : By formulating the following substantial question of law, the assessee …
Malcare WordPress Security