taxcaselaw.com - Page 1368 of 1370 - taxcaselaw.com

Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Karnataka H.C : Whether the Tribunal was right in its interpretation of the proviso to s. 5(1A) of the WT Act, 1957 ?

Avijit Das / April 7, 1981

High Court Of Karnataka K.S. Ayodhyanath vs. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Section WT 5(1A) Asst. Year 1972-73, 1973-74 M.K. Srinivasa […]

Sec 139(2), Sec. 271(1)(a), Section 271, Section 297

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of the Indian IT Act, 1922, were not saved for the purpose of completing the assessment under s. 23(4) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, after April 1, 1962,in a case where a notice under s. 22(2) has been validly served prior to that date but no return had been filed and in that view cancelling the order under s. 23(4) for the asst. yr. 1961-62 ?

Avijit Das / March 12, 1981

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Soorajmull Nagarmall Sections 139(2), 297, 271(1)(a) Asst. Year 1961-62 Sabyasachi Mukharji & Sudhindra Mohan

Sec. 36(1)(vii), Section 37

Madhya Pradesh H.C : the assessee is entitled to deduction of bad debt to the extent of 90 per cent of the total claim of Rs. 27,000, even though no dividend had been declared by the appropriate authorities in the insolvency proceedings

Avijit Das / February 25, 1981

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CIT vs. Mathuralal Kapoorchand & Co. Sections 36(1)(vii), 37 Asst. Year 1973-74 U.N. Bhachawat &

Bombay H.C : This petition raises a question as to the scope, validity and operation of s. 281 of the IT Act.

Avijit Das / January 9, 1981

High Court Of Bombay : Nagpur Bench Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade & Ors. vs. ITO Section Art. 226, 281 Asst. Year

Income Tax Case Laws

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 10,50,385 (pertaining to the customs, authorities’ claim for additional customs duty), was a ‘reserve’ within the meaning of r.1 of the Second Schedule to the SPT Act, 1963 ?

Avijit Das / November 27, 1980

High Court Of Bombay Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. vs. CIT Section SUPER SCH. II, SUTER RULE I Asst. Year 1963-64

Sec. 10(3), Section 4

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 26,983 received by the assessee by virtue of the order of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal dt. 22nd Feb., 1962, was a capital receipt and, as such, not includible in the total income of the assessee ?

Avijit Das / September 12, 1980

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Smt. Asrafi Devi Rajgharia Sections 4, 10(3) Asst. Year 1963-64 Dipak Kumar Sen &

Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 271

Calcutta H.C : Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the imposition of any penalty under s. 271(1)(c) r/w s. 274(2) of the IT Act, 1961, on the assessee ?

Avijit Das / August 5, 1980

High Court Of Calcutta Dilip Kumar Mitra vs. CIT Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1964-65 Sabyasachi Mukharji & Sudhindra Mohan Guha,

Section 147, Section 148

Delhi H.C : M/s D.L.F. Housing and Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the assessee”) is challenging by this writ petition the validity of a notice dated January 22, 1969, issued by the the second respondent under s. 147(a) r/w s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961.

Avijit Das / April 25, 1980

High Court Of Delhi D.L.F. Housing & Construction (P) Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Anr. Sections 147(a), 148 Asst.

Delhi H.C : The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the decision of the specified authority constituted under s. 72A(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), who by its order dt. 16th Nov., 1978, expressed its inability to recommend to the Central Government the acceptance of the scheme of amalgamation as proposed by the petitioner.

Avijit Das / March 13, 1980

High Court Of Delhi Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Anr. Section 72A V.S. Deshpande, C.J. &

Sec. 18(1)(a), Sec. 18(5), Section 18, Wealth Tax Act

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty was not barred by time, in view of the provisions under s. 18(5) prior to its amendment, w.e.f. 1st April, 1971 ?

Avijit Das / December 17, 1979

High Court Of Madras Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. G. Savithri Sections WT 18(1)(a), 18(5) Asst. Year 1968-69, 1969-70 Sethuraman

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 1,367 1,368 1,369 1,370 Next →

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

Scroll to Top