Month: January 2009

Delhi H.C : Corporate membership itself meant it was for the benefit of the assessee and not for any particular employee as it had a right to nominate and substitute an employee at any point of time

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. Section 37(1) Badar Durrez Ahmed & Rajiv Shakdher, JJ. IT Appeal No. 1152 of 2008 30th January, 2009 Counsel appeared : Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, Mohan Prasad Gupta & Sanjeev Rajpal, for the Appellant : Ajay Vohra & Ms. Kavita Jha, for the Respondent JUDGMENT RAJIV SHAKDHER, …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) reducing the disallowance of Rs. 15,40,667 made by the AO in respect of expenditure on guest house to Rs. 4,07,522 even though expenses allowed are not allowable under the specific provisions of ss. 37(4) and 37(5) of the IT Act ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Section 37(1), 37(4), 37(5) Asst. Year 1991-92 A.M. Kapadia & Sangeet Lodha, JJ. IT Appeal No. 52 of 2002 30th January, 2009 Counsel Appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant : Anjay Kothari, for the Respondent JUDGMENT SANGEET LODHA, J. : This appeal under s. 260A of …

Delhi H.C : the deletion of Rs. 71 lakhs received by the assessee on account of share application money by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which has been sustained by the Tribunal.

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Gangour Investment Ltd. Assessment Year : 1996-97 Section : 68 Badar Durrez Ahmed And Rajiv Shakdher, JJ. IT Appeal No. 34 Of 2007 January 30, 2009 ORDER Rajiv Shakdher, J. – The revenue has preferred the present appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as …

Bombay H.C : The Hon’ble Tribunal erred in confirming the order of CIT(A) and allowing the depreciation to the assessee @ 50 per cent and 40 per cent respectively for asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1996-97 on the value of trucks/dumpers owned by the assessee and further failed to appreciate that the assessee was only a civil contractor and was not engaged in the business of, wisely out asset (sic) i.e., trucks/dumpers transportation

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. S.C. Thakur & Bros. Section 32, IT Rule Appendix I, Item III(2)(ii) Asst. Year 1991-92, 1996-97 F.I. Rebello & R.S. Mohite, JJ. IT Appeal No. 496 of 2005 27th January, 2009 Counsel Appeared : Vimal Gupta i/b Ms. Devki Iyer, for the Appellant : Ms. Aasifa Khan, for the Respondent …

Bombay H.C : Whether the addition of Rs. 20 lacs as an income-tax advance said to have been made by the assessee to Mr. Bhupendra Chedda is based on legal evidence ?

High Court Of Bombay Surendra M. Khandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. Section 69, 132(4A), 292C F.I. Rebello & R.S. Mohite, JJ. IT Appeal No. 715 of 2000 27th January, 2009 Counsel Appeared : Dr. K. Shivram with A.R. Singh, for the Appellant : Sureshkumar with P.S. Sahadevan, for the Respondents JUDGMENT F.I. …

Bombay H.C : Whether in view of facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in allowing the interest on the borrowed fund under s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, when the share of the group company which was acquired was not shown as stock-in-trade but as investment ?

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Srishti Securities (P) Ltd. Section 36(1)(iii) F.I. Rebello & R.S. Mohite, JJ. IT Appeal No. 71 of 2006 22nd January, 2009 Counsel Appeared : Suresh Kumar with P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellant : K.B. Bhujle with B.V. Bhujle, for the Respondent JUDGMENT F.I. Rebello, J. : The assessee acquired shares …

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the deduction on account of debt owed for the purpose of determining the net wealth as claimed by the assessee should be reduced by the investment made in Capital Investment Bonds

High Court Of Bombay Miss Deanna J. Jeejeebhoy vs. Wealth Tax Officer Section WT 2(m) Asst. Year 1986-87, 1987-88, 1988-89 F.I. Rebello & R.S. Mohite, JJ. WT Ref. No. 25 of 1997 22nd January, 2009 Counsel Appeared : Neeraj Shah with Rajesh Shah, for the Applicant : P.S. Sahadevan with Mrs. Anuradha More, for the Respondent …

Calcutta H.C : the assessee which are engaged in the business of leasing out commercial vehicles are entitled to depreciation at the higher rate of 40 per cent as provided in item III(2)(ii ) of Appendix I

High Court Of Calcutta Agarwal Finance Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT Assessment Year : 1996-97 Section : 32 Sankar Prasad Mitra And Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ. IT Appeal No. 118 Of 2002 January  20, 2009  JUDGMENT 1. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : “(a) Whether a disallowance made in an …

Bombay H.C : The Hon’ble Tribunal has erred in deleting the penalty observing that as the assessee had not filed return of income on the ground that assessee had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of income

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Smt. Lata Shantilal Shah Section 271(1)(c), Expln. 3 Asst. Year 1997-98 F.I. Rebello & R.S. Mohite, JJ. IT Appeal No. 1261 of 2008 20th January, 2009 Counsel Appeared : K.R. Choudhari, for the Appellant : K. Gopal with Jitendra Singh, for the Respondent JUDGMENT by the court : The Revenue …
Malcare WordPress Security