July 2008

Section 253

Madras H.C : the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue without going into the merits of the case on the ground that the tax effect was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,000 prescribed by the CBDT in Instruction No. 1979, dt. 27th March, 2000, for filing appeals before the Tribunal without considering the subsequent Instruction No. 1985, dt.26th Sept., 2000, and without considering the judicial pronouncements of the various High Courts including that of the jurisdictional High Court wherein it has been held that the Board’s Instructions regarding monetary limits do not operate as an embargo on considering the appeals on the merits ?

/

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Excel Finance Section : 253 Asst. Year 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96 K. Raviraja Pandian &

Sec. 44AB, Section 271, Section 271B

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is imposable under s. 271B for non-compliance with the provisions of s. 44AB on the ground that the returns were filed belatedly neither under s. 139 nor on a notice under s. 142 of the Act ?

/

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd. Section 44AB, 271B Asst. Year 1994-95 K. Raviraja Pandian &

Section 32, Sec. 44AD, Section 145

Rajasthan H.C : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the AO has adopted net profit rate in making assessment of the income on the basis of best judgment assessment, any further adjustment of the profits arrived at by applying net profit rate by way of allowance of depreciation of the assets used in business is permissible ?

/

High Court Of Rajasthan Shri Ram Jhanwar Lal vs. ITO & Ors. Section 32, 44AD, 145(3) Asst. Year 1997-98, 1998-99

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security