Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 40A(7)

Sec. 37(1), Sec. 40A(7), Section 147, Section 32

Delhi H.C : Assessing Officer having allowed expenses as revenue expenses, on basis of same details to take view that expenses were capital in nature, would clearly amount to a change of opinion

Avijit Das / May 23, 2013

High Court Of Delhi Microsoft Corpn. (I) (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT Assessment Year : 2005-06 Section : 37(1), 147, 40A(7), […]

Sec. 36(1)(v), Sec. 40A(7), Section 4

Karnataka H.C : The exchange gain earned by the assessee was revenue in nature and in that way in ordering for addition of the same to the income of the assessee

Avijit Das / August 25, 2006

High Court Of Karnataka Motor Industries Co. Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 4, 36(1)(v), 40A(7) Asst. Year 1978-79 R. Gururajan &

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the provisions of s. 40A(7) applicable in the assessee’s case even though the assessee has claimed unascertained liability being provision only not actually paid ?” The present reference relates to the asst. yrs. 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1988-89

Avijit Das / July 19, 2005

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Electra (Jaipur) (P) Ltd. Section 40A(7) Asst. Year 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87, 1988-89 R.K. Agrawal

Sec. 28(i), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 40A(7), Sec. 43(1), Section 28, Section 40A

Calcutta 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) deleting a sum of Rs. 11,08,658 on account of gratuity payable to the employees on transfer to Telecommunication Department of the State Government ?

Avijit Das / March 14, 2002

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. PEICO Electronics & Electricals Ltd. Sections 28(i), 37(1), 40A(7), 43(1) Asst. Year 1981-82 Ajoy

Sec. 37(1), Sec. 40A(7), Section 37, Section 40

Madras H.C : The assessee would have received such approval if it had been sought for, the scheme being one formulated by the Life Insurance Corporation of India which has been adopted by a large number of the assessees, has led to thisreference.

Avijit Das / September 2, 1998

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Coimbatore Premier Corporation (P) Ltd. Sections 37(1), 40A(7) Asst. Year 1976-77 R. Jayasimha Babu

Sec. 37(1), Sec. 40A(7), Section 154, Section 37

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that there was a mistake rectifiable under s. 154 of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / February 6, 1997

High Court Of Madras M.V.S. Sastry vs. CIT Sections 37(1), 40A(7), 154 Asst. Year 1974-75 Thanikkachalam & N.V. Balasubramanian, JJ.

Madras H.C : The entire gratuity provision of Rs. 24,05,655 should be allowed as a deduction while computing the total income of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1974-75

Avijit Das / August 23, 1995

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Sri Rajendra Mills Ltd. Section 40A(7) Asst. Year 1974-75 Thanikkachalam & Jayarama Chouta, JJ.

Sec. 28(i), Sec. 36(1)(v), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 40A(7), Section 256, Section 28, Section 36, Section 40

Allahabad H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled for deduction of Rs. 79,300 on account of contribution to the employees’ gratuity fund even though the gratuity fund was not approved by the CIT as required under the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?

Avijit Das / November 2, 1992

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Laxmi Sugar & Oil Mills Ltd. Sections 28(i), 36(1)(v), 37(1), 40(a)(iv), 40A(7), 256 Asst.

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. 256(2), Sec. 37(1), Sec. 40A(7), Section 256, Section 37, Section 40A, Section 69, Section 80J

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct both on facts and in law in upholding the finding of the CIT (Appeals) regarding payment of penalty of Rs. 30,828 ?

Avijit Das / July 24, 1987

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Orissa Cement Ltd. Sections 256(2), 37(1), 40A(2), 80J, 69 Asst. Year 1974-75 S. Ranganathan

Post pagination

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

Scroll to Top