Month: June 2010

Bombay H.C : The principal challenge in these proceedings is to an order dt. 3rd Nov., 2009 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to the extent to which it imposes a condition that the petitioner must “apply 75 per cent of its accounting income for educational purposes in India

High Court Of Bombay American Hotel & Lodging Educational Institute vs. Central Board Of Direct Taxes & Ors. Section 10(23C)(vi) Asst. Year 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 1152 of 2010 30th June, 2010 Counsel Appeared : J.D. Mistri with R. Murlidhar & P.C. …

Karnataka H.C : No levy of interest can be made under sections 234B and 234C of the Act when computation of total income is made under section 115J of the Act can also be extended to computation of total income made under section 115JA of the Act which commences with a non obstante clause to compute the total income in accordance with the book profits, as contemplated in the said section and saves all other provisions of the Act under sub-section (4) of the said section which would include sections 234B and 234C

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Sankala Polymers (P.) Ltd. Assessment Year : 2001-02 Section : 154 N.K. Patil And Mrs. B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. IT Appeal No. 3158 Of 2005 June 30, 2010 JUDGMENT N.K. Patil, J. – This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated June 7, 2005, passed in I.T.A. …

Bombay H.C : the entire amount received on the sale of the Duty Entitlement Passbook does not represent profits chargeable under s. 28(iiid) of the IT Act, 1961 and that the face value of the DEPB shall be deducted from the sale proceeds

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours & Chemicals Section 28(iiia), 28(iiib), 28(iiic), 28(iiid), 28(iiie), 80HHC, 80HHC, third proviso, 80HHC, Expln. (baa) Asst. Year 2003-04 Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 2887 of 2009 28th/29th June, 2010 Counsel Appeared : Vimal Gupta with Suresh Kumar, Ms. Padma Divakar, A.S. Shivsharan & …

Gujarat H.C : this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the petitioner’s case and after making inquiries and examining the legality thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the notice Annex. C dt. 7th Aug.,1996, issued under s. 148

High Court Of Gujarat Kalyan Ala Barot vs. M.H. Rathod Section 147, 148, 150, 153(3) Asst. Year 1984-85 D.A. Mehta & Ms. H.N. Devani, JJ. Special Civil Appln. No. 10726 of 1996 29th June, 2010 Counsel Appeared : Ms. Niyati K. Shah, for the Petitioner : Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt and Manish R. Bhatt, for the …

Madras H.C : the particulars furnished by the assessee to the Department otherwise than by filing a return and on the basis of a notice, would amount to disclosure for the purpose of the Act

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Sivabala Devi Section 158B(b), 158BB, 158BC, 158BD Block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla & M.M. Sundresh, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 316 of 2004 24th June, 2010 Counsel appeared : Subramaniam, for the Appellant : C.V. Rajan, for the Respondent JUDGMENT F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. : The brief …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : the learned Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs. 9,16,844 for unrecorded purchase based on cogent reasons and material on record

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CIT vs. Laxmi Agarbatti Factory Section 69, IT Rules 46A Asst. Year 1995-96 Arun Mishra & Smt. S. Shrivastava, JJ. MAIT No. 51 of 2003 23rd June, 2010 Counsel Appeared : Sanjay Lal, for the Appellant : Sumit Nema, for the Respondent ORDER Arun Mishra, J. : The appeal has been …
Malcare WordPress Security