Delhi H.C : Assessing Officer had jurisdiction to levy interest under section 217(1A)
High Court Of Delhi CIT Vs. R.R. Holdings (P.) Ltd. Section 217 Assessment Year 1988-89 Sanjiv Khanna And V. Kameswar […]
Section 217
August 2014
Uncategorized
Rajasthan H.C : Where assessee could not substantiate its claim of gross profit rate of 8.7 per cent declared by it as purchase cost and sale price were unverifiable, gross profit rate of 11 per cent determined by Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal was justified
High Court Of Rajasthan Venus Arts & Gems Vs. ITO Section : 145 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Ajay Rastogi And
Sec. 37(1)
Andhra Pradesh And Telangana H.C : The payments claimed to have been made under the head secret commission is not opposed to public policy and is an admissible item of deduction in the computation of the total income of the assessee
High Court Of Andhra Pradesh And Telangana CIT Vs. Transport Corporation Of India Section 37(1) Assessment Year 1988-89 L. Narasimha
Sec. 158BC
Andhra Pradesh And Telangana H.C : Particularly when disputed questions were involved and when it was not even alleged that Assistant Commissioner was not conferred with power to issue notice, writ petition filed could not be maintained
High Court Of Andhra Pradesh And Telangana G.Venkateswar Rao Vs. ACIT Section : 158BC Assessment Year : 1999-2000 L. Narasimha
Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 32
Rajasthan H.C : Depreciation which was never allowable and assessee was aware of true nature of transaction despite which said claim was made, penalty under section 271(1)(c)
High Court Of Rajasthan Punsumi Engineers Ltd. Vs. CIT Section 271(1)(c), 32 Assessment Years : 1994-95 To 1997-98 Ajay Rastogi
Section 48, Sec. 246A
Uttarakhand H.C : the appeal against the quantum u/s 143(3) dated 26.08.2009 was not maintainable as the appellant was not really aggrieved against assessment
High Court Of Uttarakhand Deep Kukreti vs. CIT Section 48, 246A K.M Joseph, C.J. And Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. IT Appeal
Section 144, Section 138, Section 139
Rajasthan H.C : Where assessee had income from various sources but did not file income-tax return despite several opportunity and Assessing Officer passed assessment order which was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) while Tribunal remitted matter back to Assessing Officer without deciding any issue, order of Tribunal could not be interfered with
High Court Of Rajasthan CIT Vs. Gopi Ram Choudhary Section : 144, 139, 138 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ajay Rastogi
Section 145
Rajasthan H.C : the respondent-assessee being a partnership firm is engaged in the business of civil contractor and has furnished his income-tax return for the above assessment year under appeal along with the audit report and other information
High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs.Gupta, K. N. Construction Co. Section 145 Assessment Year 2009-10 Ajay Rastogi And J. K
Sec. 37(1), Section 254
Bombay H.C : Assessee had not furnished details before Assessing Officer except copy of service agreement and debit notes and therefore, without making reference to record available before Commissioner (Appeals), Tribunal remanded matter back to Assessing Officer
High Court Of Bombay Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Registrar Representing Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Section 37(1),254 Assessment Years
Section 9
Delhi H.C : Capital gains arising on the sale of shares of Exevo Inc., US (‘Exevo Inc’) by Copal Market Research Ltd. (“CMRL”) to the applicant would not be chargeable to tax in India in the hands of CMRL
High Court Of Delhi Director of Income-tax (International Tax) vs. Copal Research Ltd., Mauritius Section 9 S. Ravindra Bhat And
