Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Section 40A

Sec. 35B, Sec. 40A(7)

Gujarat H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction of the entire amount of Rs. 1,97,472 in the previous year under consideration even though the employees of the assessee had been in service since long before the commencement of that previous year ?

Avijit Das / June 18, 1991

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Geskets & Radiators Pvt. Ltd. Sections 40A(7), 35B Asst. Year 1973-74 R.C. Mankad & […]

Sec. 35B, Sec. 40(c), Sec. 40A(5), Section 40, Section 40A

Kerala H.C : Whether the first proviso to s. 40A(5)(a) of the IT Act, 1961, is an exception not only to s. 40A(5) (a), but also to the scheme of limits prescribed by s. 40A(5)(c), and if so, whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is not entitled to deduction of the full amount of salary and perquisites amounting to Rs. 37,063 paid by it to its whole-time director ?

Avijit Das / August 17, 1990

High Court Of Kerala Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 40A(5)(a), 40A(5)(c), 40A, 40(c), 35B Asst. Year 1977-78, 1979-80

Sec. 40A(5), Section 40A

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right : (i) in applying/relying on r. 3(c)(ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 ? (ii) in directing the ITO to value the perquisites by way of the car provided by the assessee to its employees as per rule 3(c)(ii) and to consider only this amount for disallowance under section 40A (5) ?

Avijit Das / June 18, 1990

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations (India) Ltd. Section 40A(5), Rule 3C(ii) Asst. Year 1979-80 K.S. Paripoornan &

Sec. 256(2), Sec. 40(c), Sec. 40A(5), Section 256, Section 32A, Section 40A

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee- company was entitled to investment allowance ?

Avijit Das / January 11, 1990

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Hans Raj Gupta & Co. (P) Ltd. Sections 32A, 40A(5), 40(c), 256, 256(2) B.N.

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

Sec. 40A(2), Section 40A

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that s. 40A(2) was attracted to the payment of interest by the assessee to the estate of late Smt. Taramathi S. Shah?

Avijit Das / June 28, 1989

High Court Of Kerala Anandji Shah vs. CIT Section 40A(2) Asst. Year1974-75, 1978-79 K.S. Paripoornan & K.A. Nayar, JJ. IT

Sec. 40A(5), Section 40

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the reimbursement of medical expenses by the assessee to its employees is to be considered as perquisite, benefit or amenity for the purpose of s. 40(a)(v) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / April 25, 1989

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. Sections 40(a)(v), 40A(5), Rule 3, 37, 37(1), 52, 52(2) Asst. Year

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. 40A(5), Section 32, Section 33, Section 40, Section 40A

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, for purposes of computing disallowance under s. 40A(5) of the Act, the provision of r. 3(c)(ii) of the IT Rules can be invoked ?

Avijit Das / March 8, 1989

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Porritts & Spencer (Asia) Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 33, 33(1A), 32, 40A(5), Rule 3(c)(ii)

Sec. 256(2), Sec. 40A(3), Section 256, Section 40A

Allahabad H.C : Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that there was no unavoidable or exceptional circumstances to warrant payment after banking hours to the representative of the payees who did not have a bank account at Qaimganj which is the place at which the transaction of payment took place ?

Avijit Das / January 16, 1989

High Court Of Allahabad Kailash Chand Gupta vs. CIT Sections 256(2), 40A(3) Asst. Year 1982-83 A.P. Misra & R.K. Gulati,

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 14 15 16 Next →

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

Scroll to Top