taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 254(2)

Bombay H.C : The Appellant does not have a Permanent Establishment in India and instead setting aside the order of the CIT (A)

Avijit Das / August 29, 2018

High Court Of Bombay Co-Operative Centrale Reiffeisen-Boereleenbank B. A. vs. Deputy Commissioner (International Taxation) Of Income Tax Section 254(2), Article […]

Sec. 254(2)

Bombay H.C : the assessee had sought deduction of Rs. 1,60,83,071 under s. 36(1) (vii) of the IT Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) being the amount of bad debt which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee

Avijit Das / January 19, 2009

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr. Section 254(2) Asst. Year 1998-99 Smt. Ranjana Desai

Sec. 254(2), Section 254

Bombay H.C : The penalty levied under s. 221 of the Act was deleted on the ground that the demand notice has not been served upon the assessee

Avijit Das / July 31, 2007

High Court Of Bombay Safari Mercantile (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Section 254(2) Asst. Year 2001-02

Sec. 254(1), Sec. 254(2), Section 254

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the additions pertaining to the balances in the Indian Bank ?

Avijit Das / July 17, 2007

High Court Of Madras T. Jayabharathy vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 254(1), 254(2) Block period 1986-87 to 1996-97

Sec. 254(2), Sec. 260A, Section 254, Section 260

Delhi H.C : Tribunal was wrong in not allowing the loss on account of exchange fluctuation in respect of loan taken and utilised in earlier years for working capital purposes on the ground

Avijit Das / May 8, 2007

High Court Of Delhi Perfetti Van Melle India (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 254(2), 260A Asst. Year 1998-99 Madan B.

Sec. 254(2), Section 254

Delhi H.C : The assessee then filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 466/2006, Ras Bihari Bansal vs. CIT in this Court, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty granted to the assessee to seek such other remedy as may be available to him under the law

Avijit Das / February 7, 2007

High Court Of Delhi Ras Bihari Bansal vs. CIT & Anr. Section 254(2) Asst. Year 1988-89 & 1989-90 Madan B.

Sec. 254(2), Section 254

Madras H.C : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in rectifying its order under s. 254 of the IT Act, based on a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered six years after the date of the order rectified ?

Avijit Das / December 11, 2006

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Sree Ayyanar Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. Section 254(2) Asst. Year 1989-90 P.D. Dinakaran

Sec. 254(2), Section 254

Gauhati H.C : Tribunal should not have made any observation relating to the merit of the case while exercising the power under s. 254(2)

Avijit Das / November 22, 2006

High Court Of Gauhati Bharat Drug Stores vs. CIT & Anr Section 254(2) Asst. Year 1991-92 P.G. Agarwal & Mutum

Sec. 254(2), Section 254

Allahabad H.C : There was a mistake apparent from the record justifying rectification under s. 254(2)

Avijit Das / November 1, 2006

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Chemical & Allied Products Section 254(2) Asst. Year 1974-75 R.K. Agrawal & Vikram Nath,

Sec. 254(2), Section 145, Section 254

Allahabad H.C : The Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction by omitting and allowing the miscellaneous application of the assessee when it amounted to revision of its own order which is not permissible in law, and which cannot be covered as a mistake apparent from record, which only can be rectified under s. 256(2)

Avijit Das / October 30, 2006

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Sherwani Sugar Syndicate Ltd. Sections 145, 254(2) Asst. Year 1979-80 R.K. Agrawal & Vikram

Post pagination

1 2 … 7 Next →

Scroll to Top