Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

January 2014

Sec. 37(1), Section 80-IA, Section 80HHC

Karnataka H.C : The payment made for the right to use central court yard along with the marble installed therein to carry on its hotel business is a revenue expenditure allowable under section 37 of the Act and not a capital expenditure as held by the assessing officer

Avijit Das / January 31, 2014

High Court Of Karnataka CIT, Central Circle vs. ITC Hotels Assessment Year : 1998-99 Section : 37(1), 80-IA, 80HHD Dilip […]

Section 80P, Section 263

Kerala H.C : While allowing claim under section 80P, an enquiry has to be conducted whether co-operative bank is conducting business as a primary agriculture credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank; claim cannot be allowed merely on basis of registration or nomenclature

Avijit Das / January 31, 2014

High Court Of Kerala Perinthalmanna Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs. ITO Assessment Year : 2009-10 Section : 80P, 263 Dr.

Section 68, Section 254

Delhi H.C : Where issue of double addition was not raised before Tribunal in grounds of appeal or in course of arguments, Tribunal was not bound to consider said issue; rectification of Tribunal’s order would not be required

Avijit Das / January 31, 2014

High Court Of Delhi Dholadhar Investment (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT Assessment Years : 1998-99 And 1999-2000 Section : 68, 254

Sec. 276CC, Sec. 278E, Section 139, Section 142, Section 144, Section 148

S.C : Benefit of proviso to section 276CC is available only to voluntary filing of return as required under Section 139(1) and said proviso would not apply after detection of failure to file return and after a notice under section 142(1)(i) or section 148 is issued calling for filing of return of income

Avijit Das / January 30, 2014

Supreme Court Of India Sasi Enterprises vs. ACIT Assessment Years : 1991-92 To 1993-94 Section : 276CC, 139, 142, 148,

Karnataka H.C : The valuation arrived at in respect of Vasudev Building by the District Valuation Officer was a mere opinion and the same cannot be taken in to account for the purpose of bringing the difference in the valuation of the building as the undisclosed income for the Block Period without actually examining the correctness of the finding recorded by the Valuation Officer

Avijit Das / January 30, 2014

High Court Of Karnataka CIT, Central Circle vs. Vasudev Construction Block Period : 1-4-1989 To 28-1-2000 Section : 158BB Dilip

Section 246, Section 143, Section 244, Section 251

Calcutta H.C : Where Commissioner (Appeals) deleted disallowance made by Assessing Officer and thereupon Assessing Officer passed an order on assessee granting refund, but no order for payment of interest under section 244(1A) on refund amount was passed and assessee aggrieved by order omitting to grant interest preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), said appeal was maintainable under section 246

Avijit Das / January 29, 2014

High Court Of Calcutta CIT, W.B.â€“II vs. Biswanath Pasari Assessment Year : 1986-87 Section : 246, 143, 244, 251 Girish

Section 132, Sec. 158B, Sec. 158BB, Sec. 158BFA, Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 32

Kerala H.C : the Tribunal had erred or not in overlooking the evidence relating to the cost of construction provided by the assessee and accepting the valuation as provided by the Valuation Officer

Avijit Das / January 29, 2014

High Court Of Kerala Medical Land vs. CIT (Appeals), Kochi Assessment Year : 1995-96 Section : 158B, 132, 32, 158BB,

Calcutta H.C : Assessee was engaged in assembly, reassembly, installation, renovation, continuous updating machinery, plants, mechanical, electronic and air-conditioning systems on board foreign vessels mostly while vessel was sailing on high seas, would be foreign project within meaning of section 80HHB(2)(b)(ii)/(iii)

Avijit Das / January 28, 2014

High Court Of Calcutta Maritime Overseas vs. CIT Section : 80HHB Girish Chandra Gupta And Tapash Mookherjee, JJ. IT Appeal

Gujarat H.C : The appellant was not a manufacturer/producer of mathia and chorafali and, therefore, was not entitled to section 10B relief in respect of profits therefrom

Avijit Das / January 28, 2014

High Court Of Gujarat Deepkiran Foods (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Range -1 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Section : 10B Akil

Section 263, Section 45

Madras H.C : Expression ‘resulted into an order prejudicial to interest of revenue’, in order of Commissioner was sufficient for invoking power under section 263 and assessee ought not to have approached writ court at stage of show-cause notice

Avijit Das / January 28, 2014

High Court Of Madras Hemanth Kumar Bothra vs. CIT, Chennai-Xi Section : 263, 45 Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman And T.S. Sivagnanam,

Post pagination

1 2 … 8 Next →

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top