Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Section 171

Section 171, Income Tax Case Laws

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

Avijit Das / November 19, 2014

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh And Telangana P. Shankaraiah Yadav (HUF) vs. ITO Section 171 Assessment Years 1991-92 To 1996-97 […]

Section 171, Section 48, Section 49

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 ?

Avijit Das / March 18, 2009

High Court Of Gujarat Lalitaben Hariprasad vs. CIT Section 48, 49, 171 Asst. Year 1988-89 D.A. Mehta & S.R. Brahmbhatt,

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 ?

Avijit Das / August 8, 2005

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Charan Dass (HUF) Section 171 Asst. Year 1985-86 R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna, JJ.

Section 171, Section 45

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 ?

Avijit Das / April 1, 2005

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Dharam Pal Singh (HUF) Sections 45, 171, Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 6 Asst.

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 ?

Avijit Das / April 1, 2005

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Smt. Meera Prem Sunder (HUF) Section 171(9), Hindu Succession Act, 1956, s. 6 Asst.

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

Avijit Das / February 14, 2005

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Amrit Lal Section 171 Asst. Year 1984-85 & 1985-86 R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna,

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 ?

Avijit Das / March 10, 2003

High Court Of Allahabad Mahendra Kumar Sewti Devi vs. CIT Section 171 M. Katju & Prakash Krishna, JJ. Income-tax Ref.

Section 171, Section 263

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 ?

Avijit Das / April 12, 2001

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh : Indore Bench Kesharimal Bapulal (HUF) vs. CIT Sections 171(9), 263 Asst. Year 1980-81 J.G.

Section 171, Section 226

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

Avijit Das / November 27, 2000

High Court Of Bombay Smt. Gyarasidevi vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 171(6), 226(3) B.H. Marlapalle & N.V. Dabholkar,

Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 171

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 ?

Avijit Das / June 15, 1998

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,

Post pagination

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

Scroll to Top