Category: Section 171

Andhra Pradesh And Telangana H.C : the deduction of the interest that accrued on the FDRs, the Assessing Officer examined the document from the point of view of section 171 of the Act

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh And Telangana P. Shankaraiah Yadav (HUF) vs. ITO Section 171 Assessment Years 1991-92 To 1996-97 L. Narasimha Reddy And Challa Kodanda Ram, JJ. I.T.T.A. Nos. 3,26,29 & 30 Of 2004 November 19, 2014 JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. – This batch of appeals raises the questions of some general importance and …

Gujarat H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim Rs. 14,33,000 as additional cost of acquisition of the interest in property for purposes of computation of capital gains ?

High Court Of Gujarat Lalitaben Hariprasad vs. CIT Section 48, 49, 171 Asst. Year 1988-89 D.A. Mehta & S.R. Brahmbhatt, JJ. IT Ref. No. 19 of 1998 18th March, 2009 Counsel Appeared : K.H. Kaji, for the Applicant : B.B. Naik, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.A. MEHTA, J. : Both the reference and tax appeal are …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the AO was not right in applying the provisions of sub-s. (9) of s. 171 of the IT Act, and also in directing him to record the finding relating to the partition as claimed by the assessee ?

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Charan Dass (HUF) Section 171 Asst. Year 1985-86 R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna, JJ. IT Ref. No. 47 of 1995 8th August, 2005 Counsel Appeared R.R. Agrawal, for the Assessee JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under s. 256(1) of …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the AO to work out the capital gains on 2/3rd of the sale consideration of Rs. 64,80,000 amounting to Rs. 43,20,000 ?

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Dharam Pal Singh (HUF) Sections 45, 171, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 6 Asst. Year 1983-84 R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna, JJ. IT Ref. No. 263 of 1991 1st April, 2005 Counsel Appeared A.N. Mahajan, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT By the court : The Tribunal, …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct to hold that on the death of Shri Prem Sundar a deemed partition had taken place which is recognised for all purposes and the property which was hitherto the HUF property no longer remains the property of HUF ?

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Smt. Meera Prem Sunder (HUF) Section 171(9), Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 6 Asst. Years 1982-83, 1983-84 R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna, JJ. IT Ref. No. 95 of 1992 1st April, 2005 Counsel Appeared A.N. Mahajan, for the Applicant : Suyash Agrawal, for the Respondent JUDGMENT By the court : …

Allahabad H.C : The share income of Rs. 8,845 received from M/s Amrit Lal Subhas Chand is not includible in the assessee’s income liable to tax although the issue with regard to the correct status to be adopted in the cases of sub-groups formed on partial partition of bigger HUFs is sub judice before the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Amrit Lal Section 171 Asst. Year 1984-85 & 1985-86 R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna, JJ. IT Ref. No. 81 of 1992 14th February, 2005 Counsel Appeared : A.N. Mahajan, for the Revenue : P.K. Jain, for the Assessee ORDER By the court : The Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred following …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that partial partition dt. 1st April, 1973, was invalid as Smt. Sewti Devi, a party to the said partition, was on partition neither allocated any share nor otherwise compensated in lieu of non-allocation of share ?

High Court Of Allahabad Mahendra Kumar Sewti Devi vs. CIT Section 171 M. Katju & Prakash Krishna, JJ. Income-tax Ref. No. 222 of 1981 10th March, 2003 JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : This is an application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, in which the following question has been referred to us for our …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT under s. 263 which was passed without giving opportunity to all the members of the family (coparceners) who were adversely affected by virtue of provisions of s. 171(9) of the IT Act on the ground that the notice to the Karta was sufficient compliance with the provisions of s. 263 ?

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench Kesharimal Bapulal (HUF) vs. CIT Sections 171(9), 263 Asst. Year 1980-81 J.G. Chitre & Shambhoo Singh, JJ. IT Ref. No. 25 of 1997 12th April, 2001 Counsel Appeared P.M. Choudhary with Anil Jain, for the Petitioner : R.L. Jain, for the Revenue JUDGMENT J.G. CHITRE, J. : We …

Bombay H.C : The petitioner replied the said notice on 8th May, 2000, and stated that her father-in-law viz., Jivanram Agrawal was running a business in the name of “M/s Jivanram Bijeram Agrawal” in the status of HUF and after demise of her father-in-law

High Court Of Bombay Smt. Gyarasidevi vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 171(6), 226(3) B.H. Marlapalle & N.V. Dabholkar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 2035 of 2000 27th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared V.D. Hon, for the Petitioner : R.G. Deo & V.D. Sapkal, for the Respondents ORDER BY THE COURT : We have heard Mr. V.D. …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty was legally leviable for the asst. yrs. 1968-69 to 1975-76 though the partition of the HUF had taken place on 31st Dec., 1974 ?

High Court Of Madras V.L. Balakrishna Naidu vs. CIT Sections 171(8), 271(1)(c) Asst. Years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76 R. Jayasimha Babu & N.V. Balasubramanian, JJ. TC Nos. 1157 to 1164 of 1988 15th June, 1998 Counsel Appeared P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, for the Applicant : C.V. Rajan, for the Respondent JUDGMENT N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, …
Malcare WordPress Security