Section 80 – taxcaselaw.com

S.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that income from Sikkim State Lottery is taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961?

Supreme Court Of India Mahaveer Kumar Jain vs. CIT Section 80TT, Article 371F of the Constitution R. K. Agrawal & Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 4166 OF 2006 19th April, 2018 R. K. AGRAWAL, J. The present appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 10.09.2004 passed by the High Court …

Bombay H.C : An asset cannot move out of the ‘Block of Assets’, if depreciation was allowed to the asset some time in the past, even though depreci tion was claimed for many years thereafter

High Court Of Bombay Meena V. Pamnani vs. CIT Section 50, 48(2), 80(J) Asst. Year 1991-92 S.C. Dharmadhikari & Prakash D. Naik, JJ. Income Tax Reference No. 96 OF 2000 29th September, 2017 S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ‘A’, Mumbai (‘Tribunal’ for sho t) at the instance of assessee, …

Madras H.C : Where assessee received interest free security deposit from persons who had taken on lease infrastructure set up in IT parks of assessee and invested such amount in fixed deposits with banks, interest income derived from fixed deposits would not amount to an income derived from business of developing SEZ

High Court Of Madras Cyber Pearl Information Technology Park (P.) Ltd. Vs. ITO, Company Ward I(1), Chennai Section 80-IAB Assessment Year 2009-10 Rajiv Shakdher And M. Sundar, JJ. T.C.(Appeal) No. 701 Of 2016 February Â 27, 2017 JUDGMENT Rajiv Shakdher, J. – This is an appeal directed against the order dated 29.04.2016, passed by the Income Tax …

Delhi H.C : Where accounts did not contain narration of some entries and assessee failed to submit comparative details of expenditure in SEZ and non-SEZ units and affairs of company were not transparent, direction for special audit required

High Court Of Delhi DLF Ltd. vs. ACIT Section 142, 80-IAB, 145 Sanjiv Khanna And Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. Writ Petition (Civil ) No. 2363 Of 2013 March 28, 2014 ORDER Sanjiv Khanna, J. – The petitioner is a real estate developer engaged in creation, execution and sale of residential and commercial projects. It also earns income …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The ITAT was justified in confirming the action of the authorities below in allowing the rectification of subsequent orders without rectifying the initial order from where the dispute in question arose

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Rajiv Gupta vs. CIT Section : 80, 139 Assessment Year : 1997-98 Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ms. Anita Chaudhry, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 292 & 305 Of 2007 February 24, 2014 JUDGMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. – This order shall dispose of I.T.A. Nos. 292 and 305 of 2007, as, …

Delhi H.C : For carried forward of unabsorbed depreciation, it was not necessary that the return should have been filed within the time u/s 139(1)

High Court Of Delhi CIT Vs. Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. Assessment Year : 2001-02 Section : 32,80,139 A.K. Sikri And M.L. Mehta, JJ. IT Appeal No. 164 Of 2008 March Â 25, 2011 JUDGMENT M.L. Mehta, J. – This is an appeal against the order dated 25th May, 2007 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, referred to …

Madras H.C : The petitioner has challenged the notice dt. 3rd Aug., 2007 calling for returns for re-assessment of income for the asst. yr. 2001-02 insofar as escaped assessment under s. 147

High Court Of Madras Tamil Nadu Petroproducts Ltd. vs. CIT & ANR. Section 80HHC, 80-IA, 147, 148, Art. 226 Asst. Year 2001-02 N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. Writ Petn. No s. 28457 of 2008 & 19260 of 2009; Misc. Petn. Nos. 1 of 2008 & 1 of 2009 17th September, 2010 Counsel Appeared : Arvind B. Dattar …

Delhi H.C : Whether the loss determined by the AO, being different from the loss as claimed by the assessee in the return, can be carried forward in view of the provisions of s. 80 read with s. 139(3) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Nalwa Investment Ltd. Section 72, 80 Asst. Year 1995-96, Badar Durrez Ahmed & Rajiv Shakdher, JJ. IT Appeal No. 335 of 2006 6th February, 2009 Counsel Appeared : Sanjeev Sabharwal & Jagdish Rai Goel, for the Appellant : B.B. Ahuja with D.K. Verma, for the Respondent JUDGMENT RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. …

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the AO to allow carry forward of the assessed loss even though the return was filed late, in view of the specific provisions of s. 80 of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Dhatu Sanskar (P) Ltd. Sections 80, 139(1), Proviso Asst. Year 1984-85 J.M. Panchal & Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, JJ. IT Ref. No. 181 of 1995 15th June, 2006 Counsel Appeared Ms. Mona Bhatt, for the Applicant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT SMT. ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. : The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench …

Madras H.C : Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80HH ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Premier Tobacco Packers (P) Ltd. Section 80HH Asst. Year 1990-91 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 201 of 2003 13th February, 2006 Counsel Appeared Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for the Appellant ORDER P.D. Dinakaran, J. : Heard. The above appeal is directed under s. 260A of …

Category: Section 80