S.C : Revenue is not bound to accept lower value in case two valuation under W.T ACT available
Supreme Court Of India Bimal Kishore Paliwal Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Section : 7, 16A Assessment Years : 1970-71 […]
Section 7, Sec. 16A
Section 16
Section 15, Sec. 10(4), Section 16, Section 17
S.C : Where assessee, a Development Officer of LIC, received incentive bonus prior to 1-4-1989 and claimed deduction of 40 per cent of same stating that he had incurred expenditure to extent of 40 per cent of incentive bonus for canvassing business, assessee was entitled only for permissible deductions under section 16
Supreme Court Of India T.K. Ginarajan vs. CIT, Cochin Section : 15, 10(4), 16, 17 Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya And Kurian
Section 16, Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 16B
S.C : Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that no interest under section 16B was chargeable in this case?
Supreme Court Of India Satya Nand Munjal vs. Commissioner Of Gift Tax (Central) Section 16B of Gift Tax Act, 1958
Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 16A, Section 10, Section 11, Section 15, Section 16, Section 5, Section 6, Section 7, Section 9
S.C : In the case of Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad (supra), the question which arose for determination was whether after the demise of a stock-broker could he be declared a defaulter by the Exchange ?
Supreme Court Of India Techno Shares & Stocks Ltd. & ORS. vs. CIT Section 32(1)(ii), BSE Bye-laws, 400 Bombay Stock
Sec. 16A, Sec. 17(1), Section 17
Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the AO was not justified in reopening the assessment on the basis of the valuation report obtained by him subsequent to the date of completion of assessment ?
High Court Of Bombay Commissioner Of Wealth TAX vs. Sona Properties (P) Ltd. Section WT 16A, 17(1) Asst. Years 1988-89,
Section 15, Section 16, Section 28
Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in directing the AO to consider the claim of deduction on account of expenses incurred against income from incentive bonus, held assessable as income under the head ‘salary’ ?
High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Ramesh Chandra Agarwal Section 15, 16(i), 28 Asst. Year 1988-89, 1989-90 R.K. Agrawal &
Sec. 17(1), Section 16, Section 17
Allahabad H.C : The incentive bonus paid to Development Officer of LIC of India is not chargeable to the tax under the head ‘Salary’
High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. M.S. Bagga Section 16, 17(1)(iv) Asst. Year 1984-85, 1985-86 R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna,
Sec. 17(1), Section 16
Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing deduction amounting to Rs. 18,000 from incentive bonus received by the assessee ?
High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. A.P. Gera Sections 16, 17(1)(iv) Asst. Year 1989-90 N.K. Sud & Satish
Section 16, Section 17
Allahabad H.C : Whether the Tribunal has been in error in holding that the assessee, a Development Officer, was entitled to 40 per cent expenses in relation to incentive bonus to the tune of Rs. 4,569, Rs. 14,558 and Rs. 19,300 for the three years under reference, respectively, received by him over and above his salary from the Corporation ?
High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Ganesh Chand Saxena Sections 16, 17(1)(iv) Asst. Years 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83 R.K. Agrawal &
Section 15, Section 16
Uttaranchal H.C : the impugned notification is issued in purported exercise of power conferred on the CBDT by s. 295 of the IT Act, 1961, r/w s. 17(2) and s. 192(2C) of the IT Act; that by virtue of the impugned notification, the CBDThas purported to supplement s. 17(2)
High Court Of Uttaranchal National Federation Of Insurance Field Workers Of India & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors.
