Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Section 29

Section 29, Income Tax Case Laws, Section 306, Section 311

Kerala H.C : the rules contained in the IInd Schedule to the Income Tax Act govern the procedure for sale of an immovable property

Avijit Das / July 24, 2017

High Court Of Kerala Somasundaram vs. CCIT & Ors. Section : 29, 311, 306 Antony Dominic & Dama Seshadri Naidu, […]

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and on the true & correct interpretation for the provisions of Section 29, 145, while arriving at the ’chargeable income’, the action is sustainable in concluding the ’proceedings on presumption’ ignoring ’material fact’ containing ’material particulars’ on record?

Avijit Das / January 30, 2013

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Dr. Gurvinder Singh Randhawa vs. CIT Section 29 Asst. Year 2006-07 Hemant Gupta &

Sec. 36(1), Sec. 36(1)(vii), Section 28, Section 29

Madras H.C : Whereby the claim of deduction of Rs. 81,68,516 and Rs. 15,27,676 were disallowed as the deductions under s. 36(2) and 36(1)(vii)

Avijit Das / January 23, 2002

High Court Of Madras Southern Technologies Ltd. vs. JCIT Section 28, 29, 36(1)(vii) V.S. Sirpurkar & K. Ravirajapandian JJ. Tax

Sec. 256(2), Section 256, Section 29, Section 40, Section 40A

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,01,246 by taking into consideration a letter from G. B. Industrial Works which was not produced before the IAC (Assessment) ?

Avijit Das / July 11, 1989

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Northern India Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. Sections 29, 256(2), 40A Asst. Year 1981-82

Section 143, Section 29, Section 56, Section 71

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The assessee had not carried on its main object and the object of lending money was only an ancillary object, and, therefore, treated the income by way of interest under the head “other sources” and not as business income

Avijit Das / December 19, 1988

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Batra Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 29, 143, 56, 71 Asst. Year 1977-78

Section 29, Section 37, Section 44

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 3,27,022, being the amount paid during the intervaluation period ended March 31, 1967, towards compensation payable under s.36 of the LIC Act, 1956, to chief agents and special agents was not expenditure deductible under the provisions of ss. 30 to 43 of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / December 12, 1988

High Court Of Bombay Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs. CIT Sections 29, 37, 44 S.P. Bharucha & T.D. Sugla,

Section 143, Section 29

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the sums of Rs. 11,756,05 and Rs. 37,629.32 disallowed by the assessing authority as amounts spent for the maintenance and upkeep of immature plants under the two heads ” weeding charges ” and ” fertiliser charges “, respectively, are allowable deductions under the provisions of s. 5 of the Kerala Agrl. IT Act, 1950 ?

Avijit Das / January 19, 1988

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Darico Cannings Ltd. Sections 29, 143 Asst. Year 1970-71 T. Kochu Thommen & M.

Section 143, Section 29

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in valuing the sugarcane produced by the assessee in its own farms at Rs. 44, Rs. 45, Rs. 46 and Rs. 47 per ton instead of Rs. 51.75 as claimed by the assessee for the purpose of ascertaining the manufacturing profits for the asst. yrs. 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 ?

Avijit Das / March 13, 1987

High Court Of Bombay Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 143, 29 Asst. Year 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 Bharucha

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

Scroll to Top