Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 32(1)

Sec. 2(13), Sec. 260A, Sec. 32(1), Section 260

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in allowing the assessee’s claim for depreciation on plant and machinery of fabric division amounting to Rs. 1,11,96,701?

Avijit Das / August 4, 2000

High Court Of Gujarat Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Ashima Syntex Ltd. SectionsÂ 2(13), 32(1), 260A Asst. Year 1993-94 […]

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 35C, Section 32, Section 32A, Section 35

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in allowing investment allowance on jeeps and motor-cycles owned by the assessee under s. 32A of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / April 25, 2000

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. General Fibre Dealers (P) Ltd. Sections 32(1), 32A, 35C Y.R. Meena & Ranjan Kumar

Sec. 32(1), Section 32, Section 34

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the ITO could not grant depreciation allowance to the assessee under the IT Act, 1961, when the same was not claimed by the assessee ?

Avijit Das / March 15, 2000

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Mahendra Mills Sections 32(1), 34(1) Asst. Year 1973-74, 1974-75 D.P. Wadhwa & Syed Shah

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 43(1)

Gujarat H.C : Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the contribution paid as per the provisions of s. 69 of the Gujarat Rajya Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, is not deductible in computation of total income ?

Avijit Das / December 24, 1999

High Court Of Gujarat Mahesana District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 32(1), 37(1), 43(1), 80J Asst. Year

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 36(1)(iii), Sec. 37(1), Section 32, Section 37

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation on assets transferred to it by the Government without a registered deed of conveyance ?

Avijit Das / April 20, 1998

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Pallavan Transport Corporation Ltd. Sections 32(1), 36(1)(iii), 37(1) Asst. Year 1978-79 R. Jayasimha Babu

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

Karnataka H.C : The machinery had not been used by the assessee for undertaking any manufacturing of its own could not be a ground for denying investment allowance to the assessee

Avijit Das / June 9, 1997

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd. Sections 32(1), 32A Asst. Year 1983-84 G.C. Bharuka & Chidananda

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 43(1), Section 32, Section 37, Section 43

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 46,178 and Rs. 10,399 are allowable as revenue expenditure for the asst. yrs. 1964-65 and 1965-66 respectively ?

Avijit Das / January 25, 1993

High Court Of Bombay Ciba Of India Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 32(1), 37(1), 43(1), Expln. 2, 254(1), 256 Asst. Year

Sec. 256(2), Sec. 32(1), Section 256

Delhi H.C : Whether the Tribunal is justified in concluding that one-fourth of the total expenditure of Rs. 17,24,480 incurred on the rooms, bathrooms, restaurant and other appurtenant fittings is capital expenditure and such conclusion is based on evidence and material is vitiated in law being based on no material and evidence based on surmises and conjectures ?

Avijit Das / July 31, 1989

High Court Of Delhi Rajeev Singh & Co. vs. CIT Sections 32(1A), 256(2) B.N. Kirpal & C.L. Chaudhry, JJ. IT

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 40(c), Sec. 40A(5), Section 32, Section 40, Section 40A

Karnataka H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in upholding the CIT(A) order who held that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40 per cent. on moulds used by it for making rubber containers ?

Avijit Das / April 10, 1989

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Amco Batteries Ltd. Sections 32(1), 40(c), 40A(5), RULE APPENDIX I PART I Item III-E(2)

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Andhra Pradesh H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the leaf springs manufactured by the assessee- company do not fall within the meaning of the expression ‘machinery’ in item No. 8 of the Ninth Schedule to the IT Act, 1961, i.e., ‘industrial and agricultural machinery’ ?

Avijit Das / June 29, 1988

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh India Leaf Spring Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 32(1) Asst. Year 1976-77 B.P.

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 8 9 10 Next →

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

Scroll to Top