Month: September 2008

Karnataka H.C : Whether the finding of the Tribunal that interest received by the assessee from securities and deposits in bank is not attributable to the amount of profits and gains of the business and therefore, does not qualify for exemption under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and as assessed under s. 56 of the Act is contrary to law and calls for interference in this appeal ?

High Court Of Karnataka The Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society Ltd. vs. ITO Section 80P(2)(a)(i), 151 Asst. Year 1991-92 V.G. Sabhahit & S.N. Satyanarayana, JJ. IT Appeal No. 1568 of 2005 30th September, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Raghuraman & Chythanya, for the Appellant : M.V. Seshachala, for the Respondent JUDGMENT V.G. Sabhahit, J. : This appeal is …

“Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in allowing set off of prior years’ business loss and unabsorbed depreciation against short-term capital gains ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Rpil Signalling Systems Ltd. Section 32(2) Asst. Year 1999-2000 K. Raviraja Pandian & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 1546 of 2008 26th September, 2008 Counsel Appeared : J. Narayanaswamy, for the Appellant JUDGMENT K. Ravirata Pandian, J. : The appeal is filed against the order of the …

Madras H.C : the conditions occurring in the Notification No. 380 of 2006, F.No. 142/9/2006-TPL, dt. 22nd Dec., 2006 [(2007) 207 CTR (St) 8] along with the words “subject to the following conditions, namely,” issued by the CBDT are ultra vires s. 54EC

High Court Of Madras Areva T & D India Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. Section 54EC, Art. 14, Art. 265 K. Raviraja Pandian & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 1524 of 2007 & M.P. Nos. 1 & 2 of 2007 24th September, 2008 Counsel appeared : Joseph Prabhakar & Shatiq …

Madras H.C : the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 10(10C), when the scheme under which the amount was paid does not fulfil the criteria prescribed under r. 2BA of the IT Rules

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. G. Chandra Section 10(10C), 260A Asst. Year 2004-05 K. Raviraja Pandian & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1543 of 2008 24th September, 2008 Counsel appeared : Arun Kurien Joseph, for the Appellant JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, J. : The Revenue filed the appeal under s. 260A of …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in rejecting the application for condonation of delay amounting to 109 days ?

High Court Of Madras Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 260A Asst. Year 2003-04 K. Raviraja Pandian & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 1481 of 2008 24th September, 2008 Counsel Appeared : N. Muthukumar, for the Appellant : Arun Kumar Joseph, for the Respondent JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of interest earned by the respondent bank on various loans extended to its employees from deposit of PF and housing loan is eligible to be exempted under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, 1961.

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Sirohi S.B.V. Bank Ltd. Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Asst. Year 1998-99, 2000-01, 2003-04 N. P. Gupta & Kishan Swaroop Chaudhari, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 105 of 2006 and 31 & 56 of 2007 24th September, 2008 Counsel Appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant : J.L. Purohit, for the Respondent ORDER By …

Madras H.C : the Tribunal was right in not considering the specific ground raised by the Revenue on the issue of treatment of consideration received for sale of shares classified as current investments, whether as business income or capital gains

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Malladi Project Management (P)Ltd. Section 260A Asst. Year 1999-2000 K. Raviraja Pandian & P. P. S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 1506 of 2008 24th September, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Arun Kurian Joseph for Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for the Appellant JUDGMENT K. Raviraja Pandian, J. : The Revenue …

Karnataka H.C : Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the penalty under s. 271B for the asst. yr. 1991-92 are barred by limitation as per the provisions of s. 275(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & ANR. vs. S.C. Naregal Section 2(12A), 44AB, 271B, 275(1)(c) Asst. Year 1990-91, 1991-92 to 2001-02 V.G. Sabhahit & S.N. Satyanarayana, JJ. IT Appeal No. 362 of 2004 23rd September, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Aravind Kumar, for the Appellants : B.S. Sangati & K.S. Hanumantha Rao, for the Respondent JUDGMENT V.G. …
Malcare WordPress Security