May 2009 – taxcaselaw.com

Kerala H.C : Whether deduction u/s 80HHC allowed after redction of amount allowed u/s 80-IB

High Court Of Kerala Olam Exports (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT C.N. Ramachandran Nair And C.K. Abdul Rehim, JJ. IT Appeal No. 169 Of 2008 May 29, 2009 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. – In the appeal filed by the assessee, the questions raised pertain to computation of deduction for export profit under section 80HHC of the …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : the assessee-petitioner is entitled to payment of interest on the amount of refund in accordance with the provisions of s. 244(1A) and s. 214 of the Act as interpreted in Sandvik Asia Ltd. vs. CIT (2006) 200 CTR (SC) 505 : (2006) 280 ITR 643 (SC)

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Roadmaster Industries Of India (P) Ltd. cs. CIT & Anr. Section 214, 244(1A) Asst. Year 1978-79, 1979-80, 1980-81 M.M. Kumar & H.S. Bhalla, JJ. Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 10223 to 10225 and 10235 of 2007 25th May, 2009 Counsel Appeared : Sanjay Bansal with Ms. Namita Verma, for the Petitioner …

Delhi H.C : Whether where no incriminating material had been collected in course of a simultaneous search under section 132 carried out on assessee along with alleged connected concerns, Assessing Officer was justified in making addition to assessee’s income under section 69A relying upon statements of a third party recorded during a consequent survey conducted under section 133A

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Concorde Capital Management Co. Ltd. Section : 69A Vikramajit Sen And Rajiv Shakdher, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 185 And 353 Of 2009 May 20, 2009 JUDGMENT Vikramajit Sen, J. – ITA No. 185/2009 This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) has been preferred …

Delhi H.C : the revenue assailing the order of the CIT(A), who had deleted the addition of Rs. 68,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Act

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Concorde Capital Management Co. Ltd. Section : 69A Vikramajit Sen And Rajiv Shakdher, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 185 And 353 Of 2009 May 20, 2009 JUDGMENT Vikramajit Sen, J. – ITA No. 185/2009 This appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (â€˜the Actâ€™ for short) has been preferred …

Madras H.C : During relevant assessment years, it filed nil returns by claiming deduction under sections 80HHC and 80-IA

High Court Of Madras Royal Stitches (P.) Ltd. vs. CCIT, Chennai-II Assessment Year : 1993-94 to 1996-97 Section : 28(i),234B V. Dhanapalan, J. Writ Petition Nos. 2104 To 2107 Of 2005 May Â 19, 2009 ORDER 1. Since the issues involved in all the four writ petitions are identical, these writ petitions are decided by this common …

Gauhati H.C : the learned Tribunal has interfered with the addition of undisclosed income of the respondent assessee to the extent of Rs. 13,66,715 for the block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 as made by the AO

High Court Of Gauhati CIT vs. Peerchand Ratanlal Baid (HUF) Section 147, 148, 150, 153, 158BB, 158BC Asst. Year Block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 Ranjan Gogoi & B.K. Sharma, JJ. IT Appeal No. 19 of 2006 15th May, 2009 Counsel Appeared : U. Bhuyan, for the Petitioner : R. Goenka, R.K. Agarwal & M. Talukdar, for …

Rajasthan H.C : Nothing was done on 3rd Jan., 2003 except merely preparing the Panchnama commencing the search at 5.05 PM and concluding at 5.15 PM

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. White & White Mineral (P) Ltd. Section 158BE N.P. Gupta & Govind Mathur, JJ. IT Appeal No. 25 of 2009 15th May, 2009 Counsel Appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Appellant JUDGMENT By the court : Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel has made available for our perusal …

Delhi H.C : The Revenue has preferred the present appeal under s. 260A

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Ashish Rajpal Section 263 Asst. Year 2002-03 Vikramajit Sen & Rajiv Shakdher, JJ. IT Appeal No. 485 of 2008 14th May, 2009 Counsel Appeared : Sanjeev Sabharwal, for the Appellant : B.B. Bhagat with Amit Bhagat & Pulkit Gupta, for the Respondent JUDGMENT RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. : The Revenue has …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether the Tribunal has committed a grave error in rejecting the adjournment application filed by counsel of the appellant/assessee and thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant/assessee ex parte without adjudicating on the merits of the case and without affording another opportunity of hearing to the appellant/assessee when the paper book filed by counsel of the appellant/assessee already contained the written submissions and the relevant documents were on record before the Tribunal

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh Anil Kumar Agrahari vs. CIT Section 254, ITAT Rule 24 Dipak Misra & R.K. Gupta, JJ. IT Appeal No. 39 of 2009 14th May, 2009 Counsel Appeared : Sumit Nema, for the Appellant : Sanjay Lal, for the Revenue. JUDGMENT By the court : Heard Mr. Sumit Nema, learned counsel for …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : the Trial Court as well as the High Court missed to notice s. 292A of the Indian IT Act containing an express bar against the invocation of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act in respect of the offence enumerated in the IT Act

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench Union Of India vs. Smt. Mamta Sethi & Ors. Section 68, 276C, 277, 278B, 279, 292A, Criminal Procedure Code 1973, ss. 24, 24(2), 277 & 377(2); Indian Penal Code, ss. 420 & 511; Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, s. 4 N.K. Mody, J. Criminal Appeal No. 213 of …

Month: May 2009