Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 43(3)

Sec. 28(i), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 43(3), Section 28, Section 32, Section 37, Section 43B

Madras H.C : The amounts collected by the assessee from lessees towards sales-tax represented only contingent deposits

Avijit Das / January 2, 2007

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Sakthi Finance Ltd. Sections 28(i), 32, 37(1), 43B, 43(3) Asst. Years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, […]

Sec. 43(3), Section 32, Section 43

Madras H.C : the building which are nursing home even in the absence of any equipment being implanted in the building is a plant and would consequentially be entitled for depreciation

Avijit Das / December 5, 2006

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Dr. D. Laxmanakumar Section 32, 43(3) Asst. Year 1998-99, 1999-2000 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S.

Sec. 43(3), Section 40

Madras H.C : The tenanted portion of the property at No. 26, Commander-in- Chief Road was used in the assessee’s business and was, therefore, excludible from the operation of s. 40

Avijit Das / September 11, 2006

High Court Of Madras (Full Bench) Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Fagun Co. (P) Ltd. Section 1983FA 40(3)(vi) Asst. Years

Sec. 43(1), Sec. 43(3), Section 32

Gujarat H.C : Whether, the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the AO not to deduct the amount of subsidy from the cost of assets for the purpose of calculation of depreciation ?

Avijit Das / March 29, 2006

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Amol Dicalite Ltd. Sections 32, 43(1), 43(3) Asst. Year 1985-86 J.M. Panchal & Bankim

Sec. 37(3b), Sec. 43(3), Section 31, Section 37, Section 43

Karnataka H.C : The expenses of repairs and insurance on running and maintenance of cars were not covered by the provisions of s. 37(3A) of the IT Act and therefore, not includible for the purpose of disallowance under s. 37(3A)

Avijit Das / February 27, 2006

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Asia Brown Boveri Ltd. Sections 31, 37(3A), 37(3B), 43(3) Asst. Years 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87

Sec. 36(1)(iv), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 43(3), Section 32, Section 36, Section 37

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal being the custodian of the IT Act, was right in law in holding that the provisions of IT Rules, 87 and 88 and the Board’s notification issued in exercise of the powers conferred under s. 36(1)(iv) of the IT Act should be ignored as being conflict with the provisions of s. 36(1)(iv) ?

Avijit Das / September 30, 2005

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. Sections 32, 36(1)(iv), 37(1), 43(3), 216, Rule 87, Rule 88

Sec. 32(1)(ii), Sec. 43(3), Section 32, Section 43

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in observing and directing the AO to disallow the entire claim of depreciation if the facts are found that the scaffolding materials at the time of termination of lease are not recovered ?

Avijit Das / June 22, 2005

High Court Of Madras Express Newspapers Ltd. vs. DCIT Sections 32(1)(ii), 43(3) Asst. Year 1989-90 Markandey Katju, C.J. & F.M.

Sec. 43(3), Section 32A

Gujarat H.C: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the drainage and sewerage network constituted plant and machinery and was entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A of the IT Act on its cost of Rs. 63,54,058 ?

Avijit Das / March 10, 2005

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer Co. Ltd. Sections 32A, 43(3) Asst. Year 1983-84 D.A. Mehta

Sec. 43(3), Section 32, Section 32A

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee-company which provided computer services to other concerns was an industrial undertaking engaged in the business of manufacture or production and thus eligible for investment allowance under s. 32A on the cost of computer ?

Avijit Das / January 19, 2005

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Professional Information Systems & Management Sections 32A, 43(3) Asst. Year 1983-84 D.A. Mehta &

Sec. 28(ii), Sec. 32(1)(ii), Sec. 36(1)(ii), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 43(3)

Andhra Pradesh H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the bottles and shells constitute plant and depreciation is admissible thereon under s. 32(1)(ii) of the IT Act, 1961, for asst. yr. 1979-80 ?

Avijit Das / November 5, 2004

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh CIT vs. Srikrishna Bottlers (P) Ltd. Section 4, 28(ii), 32(1)(ii), 36(1)(ii), 37(1), 43(3) Asst. Year

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 … 5 Next →

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

Scroll to Top