Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Section 17

Section 15, Section 17

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amounts of Rs. 28,347, Rs. 33,890, Rs. 41,629 and Rs. 45,821 received by the assessee from the British Government for the asst. yrs. 1978-79 to 1981- 82 were taxable in his hands as salary ?

Avijit Das / April 22, 1998

High Court Of Madras Late J.R. Daniel By L.R. Yesumani Grace vs. CIT Sections 15, 17 Asst. Years 1978-79, 1981-82 […]

Sec. 17(2)(ii), Sec. 17(2)(iv), Sec. 17(3), Section 15, Section 192, Section 201

Andhra Pradesh H.C : Whether the grant of house building advances at a rate of interest below the market rate is a perquisite had been debated and the view of the Government itself was that the statutory provisions did not treat it as a perquisite

Avijit Das / April 21, 1998

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh P.V. Rajagopal & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 15, 17(2)(iii), 17(2)(iv), 17(3),

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 40A(5), Section 17

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the cash payment of house rent allowance did not form part of salary for the purpose of s. 40A(5) of IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / February 5, 1997

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Saraspur Mills Ltd. Sections 17, 40A(5), Rules Appendix I, Part I, Item III (Iv)

Sec. 2(24), Section 15, Section 16, Section 17

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the addition of Rs. 3,600 as perquisite value of the conveyance is not sustainable and the standard deduction admissible under s. 16(1) cannot be restricted ?

Avijit Das / June 12, 1989

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. C. Narayanan Nair Sections 2(24), 15, 16, 17, Rule 3 Asst. Year 1978-79 K.S.

Sec. 17(2)(iv), Section 17

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 16,620 representing the cost of air fare paid by Mecotronics (P) Ltd. to its employee, the assessee, constitutes, perquisite assessable under s. 17(2)(iv) in her hands ?

Avijit Das / January 31, 1989

High Court Of Madras Mrs. Sugra Sulaiman vs. CIT Sections 17, 17(2)(iv) Asst. Year 1972-73 Ratnam & Bakthavatsalam, JJ. Tax

Section 15, Section 17

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding, notwithstanding the provisions of s. 161 of the IT Act, 1961, that interest to the extent of Rs. 366 in the asst. yr. 1975-76 and Rs. 2,490 in the asst. yr. 1976-77, which was interest received by the assessee in excess of the rate prescribed in cl. (b) of r. 6 of Part A of the Fourth Schedule to the IT Act, 1961, did not qualify for deduction under s. 80L of the IT Act,1961 ?

Avijit Das / January 24, 1989

High Court Of Madras M.C. Muthanna vs. CIT Sections 15, 17, 80L, SCH. IV PART A RULE 6 Asst. Year

Sec. 2(24), Section 17

Allahabad H.C : The petitioners, broadly categorised as Central Government employees, employees of Central Government undertakings, bank employees, State Government employees and General Insurance employees, dispute the taxability of various allowances, namely, dearness allowance, city compensatory allowance, house rent allowance, leave encashment linked with leave travel concession, running allowance, night allowance, etc., in this batch of 20 writ petitions which, for the sake of convenience, are consolidated and disposed of together.

Avijit Das / September 12, 1988

High Court Of Allahabad All India Defence Accounts Association & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 2(24), 17,

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of s. 17 (3)(i) of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum of Rs. 36,326 was not includible in the total income of the assessee ?

Avijit Das / July 5, 1988

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Jamini Mohan Kar Section 17 Asst. Year 1970-71 Ajit Kumar Sengupta & K.M. Yusuf,

Sec. 2(24), Section 17

Calcutta H.C : Mr Mihir Bhattacharyya is directed to appear for the IT Department as he has been appearing in all the matters.

Avijit Das / March 21, 1988

High Court Of Calcutta All India Insurance Employees’ Association & Ors. vs. Union Of India Sections 2(24), 17 Ajit Kumar

Sec. 2(24), Section 17

Calcutta H.C : Whether any tax is liable to be paid on the city compensatory allowance received by the officers and staff of the bank

Avijit Das / March 17, 1988

High Court Of Calcutta Syndicate Bank Officers’ Association & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 2(24), 17 Ajit

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 8 9 10 Next →

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

Scroll to Top