Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

April 2014

Gujarat H.C : the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in restricting the extra consumption of raw materials at 15 per cent. as against 40 per cent. worked out by the Assessing Officer even after upholding rejection of book results for unreconciled discrepancies in consumption

Avijit Das / April 7, 2014

High Court Of Gujarat CIT â€“ II vs. Leo Formulations (P.) Ltd. Assessment Years : 2007-08 And 2008-09 Section : […]

Kerala H.C : Whether question of agency being a question of fact could not be resolved by merely applying reasoning adopted by Tribunal in some other case but had to be answered with reference to facts and circumstances of each case and with reference to material available before Tribunal – Held, yes – Whether thus, matter was to be remitted back to Tribunal for fresh adjudication

Avijit Das / April 4, 2014

High Court Of Kerala CIT, Kottayam vs. Koottummal Groups Section 40A(3) Assessment Year 2007-08 Antony Dominic And Anil K. Narendran,

Sec. 36(1)(Viia)

Kerala H.C : Appellants-assessees were not entitled to deduction of 10 per cent. of the aggregate average advances made by its rural branches under section 36(1)(viia)

Avijit Das / April 3, 2014

High Court Of Kerala Kannur District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT Section : 36(1)(Viia) Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dr. Manjula

Sec. 234A, Sec. 234B, Sec. 234C

Bombay H.C : The assessee being a notified person under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act,1992 is not liable to pay interest u/s.234 A, 234 B and 234 C

Avijit Das / April 1, 2014

High Court Of Bombay CIT, Central â€“ II vs. Cascade Holdings (P.) Ltd. Section : 234A, 234B And 234C Assessment

Sec. 260A, Section 254

Bombay H.C : Where Tribunal in impugned order had just followed its own earlier view and that too in relation to same assessee, appeal against order of Tribunal did not raise any substantial question of law

Avijit Das / April 1, 2014

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Deepak Fertilizers And Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. Section : 260A, 254 C. Dharmadhikari And G.S.

Sec. 194H, Sec. 40(a)(i)

Bombay H.C : Where assessee offered incentive to distributors/stockists on meeting of sales target on principal to principal basis, that incentive could not be treated as commission payment under section 194H

Avijit Das / April 1, 2014

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Intervet India (P.) Ltd. Assessment Year : 2005-06 Section : 194H, 40(a)(i) S.C. Dharmadhikari

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 4 5

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

Scroll to Top