Section 256 – taxcaselaw.com

Andhra Pradesh H.C : The Commissioner acted beyond the scope of powers conferred to him under Sec. 263 of the Income Tax Act in passing the impugned order and whether the order of the Commissioner satisfies the requirements of Section 263

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh CIT vs. V. Dhana Reddy & Co Section 256(2), 263, 143(3) Asst. Year 1987-88 C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy & Challa Kodanda Ram, JJ. Referred Case No. 18 of 2001 22nd December, 2017 Counsel appeared: K. Raji Reddy, Senior Standing Counsel for the Applicant.: A.V.A. Siva Kartikeya for the Respondent C. V. …

Delhi H.C : The sum of Rs.24.17 crores for the assessment year 1990-91 and a sum of Rs. 28.86 crores for the assessment year 1991-92 constituted a diversion by overriding charge

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. D.T.T.D.C. Ltd. Section 256(1), 260A, 44AB, 143(2), 37, 34, 147/148, 79A Asst. Year 1990-91, 1991-92, 1996-97, 1994-95 and 1992-93 ITA NOS. 166/2001, 161/2004 & 320/2004 & ITR NOS. 30â€”33/1997 Sanjiv Khanna & R.V. Easwar, JJ. 20th March, 2012 Counsel appeared Sanjeev sabharwal, sr. Standing counsel for the Petitioner. : R.p. …

Bombay H.C : The CBDT Instructions, fixing the monetary limits for the revenue to file appeals before the High Court have been issued in consonance with the provisions of Section 268A (1)

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Smt. Vijaya V. Kavekar Section 268A(1), 260A, 256(2) Nishita Mhatre & M.T. Joshi, JJ. TAX Appeal No. 76 & 78 OF 2007 27th September, 2011 Counsel Appeared Alok Sharma for the Appellant. : R.R. Chandak & M.K. Kulkarni for the Respondent. SMT. MHATRE, J. Both these Tax Appeals are being …

Delhi H.C : The Tribunal allowed the depreciation at 15 per cent, as was done in the previous year as well

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. A.K. Sikri & Ms. Reva Khetrapal, JJ. Section 32, 256 Asst. Year 1977-78 IT Ref. No. 21 of 1992 16th August, 2010 Counsel Appeared : Sanjeev Sabharwal, for the CIT : P.N. Monga & Manu Monga, for the Assessee JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J. : The question is …

Delhi H.C : reference was not to be filed if tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs was very much applicable even to old references which were still undecided

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. P.S. Jain And Co. Section : 256 Deepak Misra, CJ. And Manmohan, J. ITR No. 179 Of 1991 AugustÂ 2, 2010 JUDGMENT Â 1. This is a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. N. …

Allahabad H.C : the mistakes pointed out by the assessee had really crept in the order of the Tribunal and that such mistakes went to the root of the matter

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. S.K. Gupta Section 254(2), 256(1) Asst. Year 1974-75, 1976-77 R.K. Agrawal & Shashi Kant Gupta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 218 of 1981 9th September, 2009 Counsel Appeared : Bharatji Agarwal, A. Kumar, A.N. Mahajan, G. Krishna, R.K. Agarwal, S. Chopra & S. Srivastava, for the CIT : D. C. Chaturvedi, …

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduct the entire amount of interest as revenue expenditure under s. 37 of the IT Act ?

Supreme Court Of India Kerala Road Lines vs. CIT Sections 37(1), 254(1), 256(1) Ashok Bhan & J.M. Panchal, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 5308 & 5309 of 2002 12th March, 2008 JUDGMENT ASHOK BHAN, J. : These two appeals have been filed by the appellant assessee (hereinafter referred to as â€˜the assesseeâ€™) with the leave of the …

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,93,546 holding that the amount in question represented capital gains and the said capital gains was exempt under s. 47(iv) of the IT Act ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Shahibaug Enterprises (P) Ltd. Section 47(iv), 256(2) Asst. Year 1979-80 D.A. Mehta & Z.K. Saiyed, JJ. IT Ref. No. 257 of 1995 22nd January, 2008 Counsel Appeared : Manish R. Bhatt, for the Applicant : R.K. Patel, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.A. MEHTA, J. : The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, â€˜Câ€™ …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in altogether ignoring the circumstantial evidence and deleting the addition of Rs. 1,55,000 made on account of undeclared payments made for the purchase of immovable property ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Chandra Chemoux Section 69, 158BB, 256(2) Block period 1986-87 to 1996-97 Bhagwati Prasad & Munishwar Nath Bhandari, JJ. IT Ref. Appln. No. 97 of 1999 26th September, 2007 Counsel Appeared : K.K. Bissa, for the Applicant : Sanjeev Johari, for the Respondent JUDGMENT MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. : Both these …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case, the Tribunal has erred in law while not accepting claim under s. 80-I although the assessee fulfilled all requisite conditions of being an industrial undertaking ?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Liberty Group Marketing Division vs. CIT Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1987-88 M.M. Kumar & Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. IT Case No. 33 of 1999 19th July, 2007 Counsel Appeared : Sanjay Bansal with Parvesh Saini, for the Petitioner : Sanjiv Bansal, for the Respondent JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. : This …

Category: Section 256