Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 256(1)

Sec. 256(1), Sec. 41(1), Section 256, Section 41

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the excise duty collection was a trading receipt in the year of receipt and hence excise duty refund of Rs. 1,45,752 was liable to tax in the hands of the assessee under s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / October 30, 2002

High Court Of Rajasthan Wolkem (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 41(1), 256 Asst. Year 1986-87 N.N. Mathur & H.R. Panwar, […]

Sec. 256(1), Section 256

Bombay H.C : the CIT (A) was justified in directing that the sum of Rs. 4,07,283 being interest received on the broken period of the securities sold by the assessee should not be considered as part of the chargeable income for the year of account

Avijit Das / April 18, 2002

High Court Of Bombay American Express International Banking Corpn. vs. I.S. Nigam Sections 256(1), ITAT RULES r. 43, ITAT RULES

Sec. 256(1), Section 254, Section 256, Section 69

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and also the issue before the assessing authority being whether the unexplained investments declared by the minor children under the Amnesty Scheme could be added in the in the assessment of their father, the Tribunal is right in directing the AO to determine whether the amount invested by the minor children in immovable properties during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1984-85 were out of the past accumulation or not ?

Avijit Das / October 31, 2001

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Dr. T.K. Jairaj Sections 69, 254, 256(1) Asst. Year 1984-85 P.K. Balasubramanyan & C.N.

Sec. 256(1), Section 256

Allahabad H.C : Whether the delay in filing the applications could have been condoned beyond the period under the proviso to s. 256(1) of the IT Act.

Avijit Das / January 4, 2001

High Court Of Allahabad Sheo Prasad Vinod Kumar vs. Union Of India & Ors. Section 256(1), Proviso Asst. year 1980-81

Sec. 254(3), Sec. 256(1), Sec. 256(2), Section 254, Section 256

Delhi H.C : Whether the application under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, filed by the CIT was within time. By order dt. 25th April, 1989, passed by the Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as. “the Tribunal”), the appeals filed by the Department against the orders of the CIT(A) were dismissed.

Avijit Das / March 22, 1991

High Court Of Delhi J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Sections 254(3), 256(1), 256(2) B.N. Kirpal & D.K.

Sec. 256(1), Sec. 256(2), Section 256

Allahabad H.C : Whether the Tribunal is legally justified in upholding the refusal of registration under s. 185 of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / January 31, 1991

High Court Of Allahabad Shankerji Construction Co. vs. CIT Sections 256(1), 256(2) B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. & R.A. Sharma, J.

Sec. 256(1), Sec. 43(1), Section 256, Section 43

Bombay H.C : The expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of freight and duty in transporting machinery received by it as a gift constituted a part of the actual cost of the asset.

Avijit Das / September 6, 1989

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Ciba Of India Ltd. Sections 43(1), 256(1) S.P. Bharucha & T.D. Sugla, JJ. IT

Sec. 256(1), Section 158, Section 256

Andhra Pradesh H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in cancelling the reassessment made including the share income of the spouse who was a partner in the same firm under s. 64(1)(i) of the IT Act, 1961, for the asst. yr. 1980-81 ?

Avijit Das / March 10, 1988

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh CIT vs. V. Veeraraghavulu Sections 256(1), 158A Asst. Year 1980-81 G. Ramanujulu Naidu & Y.V.

Sec. 256(1), Sec. 256(2), Section 256

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of s. 164(1) itself are not applicable and both the beneficiaries and their shares are known and determinate ?

Avijit Das / October 12, 1987

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Poonam Chand Manmal Trust Sections 256(1), 256(2), ITAT Rule 445 Asst. Year 1977-78 N.M.

Sec. 256(1), Sec. 256(2), Section 256

Kerala H.C : These are four original petitions filed by the assessees to income-tax, under s. 256(2) of the IT Act, praying that the Tribunal maybe directed to refer certain questions of law arising out of the appellate order for the decision of this Court.

Avijit Das / June 5, 1987

High Court Of Kerala Kesava Cashew Co. vs. CIT Sections 256(1), 256(2) K.S. Paripoornan & K. Sreedharan, JJ. Original Petn.

Post pagination

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

Scroll to Top