Month: March 2010

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, and in law the Tribunal was right in holding that Padma Vilas Palace was not a building used as a hotel ?

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Scindia Investment (P) Ltd. Section 2(11), 50(2) Asst. Year 1999-2000 Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 2416 of 2009 31st March, 2010 Counsel Appeared : Suresh Kumar i/b Ms. Padma Divakar, for the Appellant : J.D. Mistry with Atul K. Jasani, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : the loss of Rs. 51,61,875 incurred on account of transactions of purchase and sale of 25 lacs units called ‘US-64’ was speculative loss under s. 73 of the IT Act and that the assessee was not entitled to set off in respect of the aforestated loss accordingly

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Porrits & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 73, Expln., 94(7) Asst. Year 1991-92 M.M. Kumar & Jitendra Chauhan, JJ. IT Appeal No. 10 of 2004 31st March, 2010 Counsel Appeared : Santosh Aggarwal & A.C. Jain, for the Assessee : Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, for the Revenue Judgment M.M. KUMAR, …

Bombay H.C : the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) by deleting the addition of Rs. 31,68,775 being insurance premium paid by the assessee firm on a keyman insurance policy

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. B.N. Exports Section 37(1) Asst. Year 2004-05 Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 2714 of 2009 31st March, 2010 Counsel Appeared : Ms. Suchitra Kamble, for the Appellant : A.K. Sharma with P.C. Tripathi, for the Respondent JUDGMENT DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. : The appeal by …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : the payments were made beyond the due dates and were, therefore, not allowable under s. 36(1)(va) and were to be treated as income under s. 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, 1961, in contravention of the decision in the case of CIT vs. Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (2008) 215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Lakhani Rubber Works Section 2(24)(x), 37(1), 43B Asst. Year 2003-04 M.M. Kumar & Jitendra Chauhan, JJ. IT Appeal No. 634 of 2009 30th March, 2010 Counsel appeared : Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, for the Appellant JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. : The instant petition filed by the Revenue under s. …

Allahabad H.C : Whether on facts, encashment of fixed deposits on expiry of period of bank guarantee and cessation of provisional attachment, which otherwise was illegal and in no way authorized encashment of fixed deposits, was totally unjustified

High Court Of Allahabad Gopal Das Khandelwal vs. Union of India Section : 226, 281B Rajes Kumar And Pankaj Mithal, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1654 Of 2006 March 30, 2010 ORDER 1. All the five petitioners of this writ petition are related to one another. 2. A search and seizure under section 132 of …

Bombay H.C : The assessee is not eligible for deduction under s. 80-O since he is a professional and is providing professional service and therefore it cannot be said that he was owning some intellectual property and earning income through use/exploitation of such intellectual property in view of Supreme Court’s decision in the case of NTPS

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Charles M. Correa Section 80-O, Asst. Year 2003-04 Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 2625 of 2009 30th March, 2010 Counsel Appeared : Ram Upadhyay, for the Appellant : Atul K. Jasani with P.C. Tripathi, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. : The appeal …

Gujarat H.C : Condition precedent for issuing notice under section 153C and assessing or reassessing income of ‘such other person’ is that money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned should belong to such person

High Court Of Gujarat Vijaybhai N. Chandrani vs. ACIT Assessment Year : 2001-02 To 2006-07 Section : 153C D.A. Mehta And Ms. H.N. Devani, JJ. Special Civil Appln. No. 13787 Of 2009 March 30, 2010 JUDGMENT Ms. H.N. Devani, J.—Considering the controversy involved in the present petition, by consent of the learned advocates for the parties, …

Bombay H.C :Tribunal were justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,08,400 contravening the provisions of Expln. 1 to s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, without appreciating the facts brought on record by the AO in his order dt. 19th March, 2003

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Alkesh K. Patel Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1995-96 Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 24 of 2007 30th March, 2010 Counsel Appeared : N.A. Kazi, for the Appellant : Anil Mishra, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. : The appeal by the Revenue under …
Malcare WordPress Security