Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 41(1)

Sec. 28(i), Sec. 41(1), Section 5

Bombay H.C : Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in deleting the additions in respect of sales-tax refund to the extent of Rs. 9,00,813 ?

Avijit Das / January 6, 2009

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Beirsdorf (India) Ltd. & Anr. Section 5, 28(i), 41(1) Asst. Year 1989-90 AT GOA […]

Sec. 28(iv), Sec. 2(24), Sec. 41(1), Section 41

Delhi H.C : cessation of liability of sick company and got registered with BIFR

Avijit Das / September 23, 2008

High Court Of Delhi CIT Vs. Tosha International Ltd. Assessment Year : 2001-02 Section : 41 (1), 2(24),28(iv) Badar Durrez

Sec. 41(1), Section 41

Rajasthan H.C : How this income-tax appeal has been preferred under s. 260A

Avijit Das / July 30, 2007

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. EID Mohd. Nizammudin Section 41(1) Asst. Year 1996-97 R.M. Lodha &

Sec. 41(1), Section 41

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 55,28,862 being the refund of countervailing duty received by the assessee during the year of account relevant to the asst. yr. 1987-88 could be brought to tax in the asst. yr. 1987-88 under the provisions of s. 41 (1) of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / July 7, 2006

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Travancore Chemical & Mfg. Co. Ltd. Section 41(1) Asst. Year 1987-88 K.S. Radhakrishnan &

Sec. 41(1), Section 41

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in restoring the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to ascertain whether the deduction was allowed to the assessee in any year in past for attracting the provisions of s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / March 15, 2005

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Emkay Glass Works Section 41(1) Asst. Year 1984-85 R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna, JJ.

Sec. 41(1), Section 41

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,42,000 received by the assessee from the Mercantile Bank is in the nature of casual receipt and not partaking of the nature of income liable to tax for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?

Avijit Das / December 2, 2004

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Swastika Metal Works Section 41(1) Asst. Year 1974-75 G.S. Singhvi & Tapan

Sec. 41(1), Section 41

Allahabad H.C : Whether, in law and on the facts of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the remaining amount of refund of excise duty of Rs. 30,851 which was distributed amongst the partners of the firm was not the income of the assessee-firm?

Avijit Das / December 2, 2004

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. London Machinery Company Section 41(1) Asst. Year 1976-77 R.K. Agrawal & Prakash Krishna, JJ.

Sec. 41(1), Section 41

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the refund of Rs. 2,14,131 was not taxable in the hands of the assessee for asst. yr. 1978-79 under s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / August 3, 2004

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Des Raj Chiranji Lal Steel Rolling Mills Section 41(1) Asst. Year 1978-79

Sec. 37(1), Sec. 41(1)

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 3,500 paid by the assessee as penalty for late payment of sales-tax was an allowable deduction ?

Avijit Das / May 20, 2004

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Delhi Automobiles Sections 37(1), 41(1) Asst. Year 1975-76 B.C. Patel, C.J. & Badar Durrez

Sec. 41(1), Section 32, Section 41

Bombay H.C : Whether the sale proceeds received by the assessee on selling the scrapped bottles and crates (trays) could be taxed as income by virtue of s. 41(1) of the IT Act, 1961? Briefly stated, the assessee is a private limited company which derives income from the manufacture and sale of soft drinks. The assessee was claiming depreciation in respect of the bottles and crates (trays) purchased by the assessee, being the full value of such purchase under the proviso to s. 32(1)(ii)

Avijit Das / February 10, 2004

High Court Of Bombay : Panaji Bench Nectar Beverages (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT Sections 32, 41(1) Asst. Year 1991-92 A.M.

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next →

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

Scroll to Top