Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 32(1)

Section 32, Sec. 32(1)

Kerala H.C : The assessee’s claim for higher rate of depreciation on tipper trucks and JCB mainly used for own business and partly let out to other parties

Avijit Das / January 11, 2010

High Court Of Kerala N.D. Joseph vs. CIT Section 32(1), IT Rule 5 C.N. Ramachandran Nair & V. K. Mohanan, […]

Section 32, Sec. 32(1)

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation of Rs. 4,88,901 when the assessee was only a beneficial owner of the bus ?

Avijit Das / November 23, 2009

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Smt. A. Sivakami & Anr. Section 32(1) Asst. Year 2002-03 K. Raviraja Pandian &

Section 32, Sec. 32(1), Sec. 35(1)(iv), Sec. 35(2)(ia)

Delhi H.C : The Tribunal has erred in allowing depreciation on the flat purchased by the assessee at Mumbai

Avijit Das / July 27, 2009

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Panacea Biotech Ltd. Section 32(1), 35(1)(iv), 35(2)(ia) Asst. Year 2000-01 A.K. Sikri & Valmiki

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 37(3b), Section 5, Section 80G

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) that the addition of Rs. 55,27,000 on account of duty drawback and cash assistance on accrual basis was not justified ?

Avijit Das / March 2, 2009

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. Section 5, 32(1), 37(3A), 37(3B), 80G, IT Rule 6D, IT Rule

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 37(1), Section 32

Madras H.C : Whether the expenditure on construction of building in a leasehold premises would amount to revenue expenditure, contrary to the clear provisions of Expln. 1 to s. 32(1)

Avijit Das / June 27, 2007

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. TVS Lean Logistics Ltd. Section 32(1), Expln. 1, 37(1) Asst. Year 2001-02 & 2002-03

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Rajasthan H.C : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was legally justified in law in deleting the disallowances of Rs. 1,50,000 made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) even though the assessee failed to establish that the payment made to State Polo Club alleged to be the fee for the sponsorship of Mewar OMS Trophy had any element of publicity or advertisement of its hotel business ?

Avijit Das / November 8, 2006

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels (P)Ltd. Sections 32(1)(ii), Second proviso, 37(1), Rule Appendix I,

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Delhi H.C : Whether Tribunal was correct in giving a finding that the container/tanker mounted on a vehicle was nothing but a big cylinder because it had all attributes of a cylinder ?

Avijit Das / January 12, 2006

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Goyal MG Gases Ltd. Section 32(1), RULE Appendix I, Item III(3)(v) Asst. Years 1992-93,

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in determining the undisclosed income even though the AO himself has not specifically rejected the books of account of the appellant or the method of accounts adopted by the appellant ?

Avijit Das / October 7, 2004

High Court Of Madras Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Kences Foundation (P)Ltd. Sections 32(1), second proviso, 158B(b), 158BB Asst.

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Orissa H.C : The appellant is a Public Limited Company wholly owned by the State Government of Orissa and has been incorporated with inter alia the object of promoting and establishing industries which are likely to advance the Industrial Development of Orissa.

Avijit Das / March 17, 2004

High Court Of Orissa Industrial Development Corporation Of Orissa Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 32(1), RULE Appendix I, Part I, item

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 37(1), Section 32, Section 37

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the garden building and the furniture thereon were modes of advertisement to the assessee-company and the assessee was entitled to depreciation thereon ?

Avijit Das / February 24, 2004

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Sections 32(1), 37(1) Asst. Year 1971-72 Y.R. Meena

Post pagination

1 2 … 10 Next →

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

Scroll to Top