Section 113

Section 113, Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 158BFA, Sec. 36(1)(vii)

Karnataka H.C : the disallowance of sundry debtors claim by the assessee when the same had not been disclosed in the course of search and the same was not supported by bills and the alleged debtors had only dealt with the assessee which evidence was not taken into consideration and accounts/books had not been maintained u/s.36(1(vii)

/

High Court Of Karnataka CIT, Central Circle vs. B. Suresh Baliga Block Period : 1-4-1999 To 28-1-2000 Section : 113,

Sec. 158B, Sec. 158BB, sec. 158BH, Section 113, Section 158

S.C : Whether the AO had erred in imposing surcharge at 17 per cent on the tax amount of Rs. 97,456 under s. 113 of the IT Act, 1961 (‘1961 Act’) for the block period comprising of previous years relevant to 10 assessment years, i.e., 1991-92 to 2000-01, including the period from 1st April, 2000 to 17th Jan., 2001

/

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Suresh N. Gupta Section 4, 113, 158B, 158BB, 158BH, 2001FA 2, Sch. I, Part

Sec. 158BC, Section 113

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the addition made by the AO on account of variation in stock found in course of search and seizure operation and further the opinion that no surcharge was leviable in respect of search conducted during financial year 2001-02 even when the levy of surcharge has been provided by Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 2000 (10 of 2000) [first proviso to s. 2(3) of the Act 10 of 2000] ?

/

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CIT vs. Narmada Ginning & Pressing Factory Block period 1st April, 1995 to 30th Nov.,

Sec. 158B, Sec. 158B(B), Sec. 158BA(3), Sec. 158BD, Section 112, Section 113, Section 158

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a notice under s. 158BD of the IT Act could have been issued and was justified to the appellant, despite the fact that return for the relevant asst. yr. 1996-97 showing the receipt ofRs. 6.66 lakhs from sale of plot had already been filed and tax liability on the same was also met?

/

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench Smt. Harbans Kaur Bhatia vs. CIT Section 112, 113, 158B(b), 158BA(3), 158BD

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security