Month: August 2008

Bombay H.C : The respondent should first determine the ‘fair market value’ of the property in question in the light of the attending circumstances and without determining the fair market value it is not only difficult but impossible to state that the apparent consideration is lower than the market value by 15 per cent or more

High Court Of Bombay : Nagpur Bench CIGEO Construction Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Appropriate Authority & Ors. Section 269UD Anoop V. Mohta & C.L. Pangarkar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 558 of 1995 29th August, 2008 Counsel Appeared : M.G. Bhangde, for the Petitioner : A.S. Jaiswal, for the Respondents JUDGMENT Anoop v. Mohta, J. : The …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the interest/penal interest charged by the bank on delayed payment of instalments in recurring deposit account by the depositor can be subjected to levy of tax under the provisions of the Interest-tax Act, 1974

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Bank Of Rajasthan Ltd. Section INT 2(7) Asst. Year 1996-97, 1997-98 N. P. Gupta & Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 100, 141, 115, 120 of 2006 28th August, 2008 Counsel Appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant : Ramit Mehta, for the Respondent JUDGMENT By the court : …

Rajasthan H.C : The interest paid by the bank to the NRIs on deposits in Indian currency was exempt under s. 10(15)(iv)(fa) of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby not subject to TDS under s. 195

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Manager, State Bank Of India Section 10(15)(iv)(fa), 194A, 194-I, 195 Financial years 2001-02 & 2002-03 N.P. Gupta & Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 5 & 97 of 2006 26th August, 2008 Counsel appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant ORDER Kishan Swaroop, J. : Both these appeals, arise …

Madras H.C : the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the additions made by the AO to the tune of Rs. 48,43,782 even though the assessee has not accounted the correct receipts of his business

High Court Of Madras Commissioner Of Gift Tax vs. A. Vajjiram & Bros. Section 44AD Asst. Year 2002-03 K. Raviraja Pandian & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1266 of 2008 25th August, 2008 Counsel appeared : J. Narayanaswamy, for the Appellant JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, J. : The Revenue is on appeal against …

Bombay H.C : The petitioner filed a petition on 4th May, 1988 under s. 273A for waiver of interest charged and for waiver of penalties and restricted the same only for years 1983 to 1986

High Court Of Bombay : Nagpur Bench  Smt. Prakashkumari vs. CIT Section 139(8), 217, 273A Asst. Year 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86 Anoop V. Mohta & C.L. Pangarkar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 3355 of 2001 22nd August, 2008 Counsel appeared : C.J. Thakkar, for the Petitioner : A.S. Jaiswal, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Anoop V. Mohta, J. : …

Bombay H.C : Bonus of Rs. 5,26,767 was paid by the assessee company in excess of 8.33 per cent was allowable as a deduction under s. 36(1)(ii) and that the restriction imposed by first proviso to s. 36(1)(ii) applied to profit or productions linked bonus and not to other payments

High Court Of Bombay At Goa CIT vs. Maina Ore Transport (P) Ltd. Section 36(1)(ii), 37(1) Asst. Year 1993-94 S.C. Dharmadhikari & Santosh Bora, JJ. IT Ref. No. 1 of 2004 22nd August, 2008 Counsel Appeared : S.R. Rivonkar, for the Appellant : Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Santosh Bora, J. : By this …

Bombay H.C : The ex gratia payment in excess of the limits prescribed under the Payment of Bonus Act, either under s. 36(1)(ii) or s. 37(1) of the Act, is allowable as business expenditure

High Court Of Bombay At Goa CIT vs. Maina Ore Transport (P) Ltd. Section 36(1)(ii), 37(1) Asst. Year 1993-94 S.C. Dharmadhikari & Santosh Bora, JJ. IT Ref. No. 1 of 2004 22nd August, 2008 Counsel Appeared : S.R. Rivonkar, for the Appellant : Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Santosh Bora, J. : By this …

Rajasthan H.C : the information received from DDI constitutes valid material on the basis of which required satisfaction can be reached by the Assessing Officer for assuming jurisdiction under section 147

High Court Of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench CIT, Bikaner vs. Dr. Devendra Gupta Assessment Year : 1994-95 to 1998-99 Section : 147 N.P. Gupta And Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 68 Of 2006 And 91, 133, 134 & 141 Of 2007 August  21, 2008 ORDER   1. These five appeals arise out of the common …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : the provisions of ss. 194A, 194-I and 194C were not applicable as no payment has been made separately on account of interest, rent, etc. The transaction was a transaction of purchase and sale and not payment of expenses

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Assistant Manager (Accounts), Food Corporation Of India Section 194A, 194C, 194-I, 201 Hemant Gupta & Rajesh Bindal, JJ. IT Appeal No. 407 of 2008 21st August, 2008 Counsel appeared : Yogesh Putney, for the Appellant JUDGMENT Rajesh Bindal, J. : The Revenue has filed the present appeal against …

Allahabad H.C : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in confirming the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) ?

High Court Of Allahabad Delhi Kanpur Gondia Transport Co. vs. CIT Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78 R.K. Agrawal & Dr. Satish Chandra, JJ. IT Ref. No. 160 of 1991 21st August, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Ashok Bhatnagar, for the Applicant JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J. : The Tribunal, Allahabad Bench “B”, Allahabad, at the instance …
Malcare WordPress Security