Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is correct in law in allowing legal expenses amounting to Rs. 6,423.54 ?

High Court Of Kerala Commissioner Of Agricultural Income Tax vs. Malabar Industries Co. Ltd. Section 37(1) Asst. Year 1970-71 V.P. Gopalan Nambiyar, C.J. & T. Chandrasekhara Menon, J. IT Ref. No. 107 of 1977 14th December, 1978 Counsel Appeared Government Pleader, for the Revenue : Mani J. Meenattoor, H.M. Abdul Azeez, K. Joseph Monippally & Thomas …

Madras H.C : Whether the profit of Rs. 3,73,870 obtained by the assessee during the relevant previous year by the sale of chemicals imported by it on the strength of licences issued to it, based on its export performance of leather, both manufactured and purchased by it, was rightly held as not attributable to the manufacturing activity carried on by it ?

High Court Of Madras India Leather Corporation vs. CIT Section 104(4)(a) P. Govindan Nair, C.J. & V. Ramaswami, J. Tax Case No. 33 of 1975 14th February, 1978 Counsel Appeared Subramaniam for M/s. Subbsraaya Aiyar, Padmanabhan & Ramamani, for the Assessee : Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, for the Revenue GOVINDAN NAIR C. J. : The question referred …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profit of Rs. 6,63,658 obtained by the assessee during the relevant previous year by the sale of chemicals imported by it on the strength of the licence issued to it based on its earlier export performance of leather goods processed by it was not attributable to the manufacturing activity carried on by it and, hence, the assessee could not be considered as an ‘industrial company’ as defined in s. 2(6)(d) of the Finance Act 1968 ?

High Court Of Madras India Leather Corporation (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 1968FA 2(6)(d) Asst. Year 1968-69 P. Govindan Nair, C.J. & V. Sethuraman, J. Tax Case No. 406 of 1974 30th January, 1978 Counsel Appeared Subramaniam for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan & Ramamani, for the Assessee : A.N. Rangaawamy & Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, for the …

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to have deficiency under s. 80J(3) of the IT Act, 1961, worked out at the rate of 6 per cent on the capital employed without regard to the period for which the industrial undertaking had worked ?

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Godrej Soaps Private Ltd. Section 80-J S.P. Bharucha & T.D. Sugla, JJ. IT Ref. No. 385 of 1975 13th March, 1987 Counsel Appeared G.S. Jetly, with Mrs. Manjula Singh & C.K. Krishnan, with him for the revenue: None appeared for the Respondent. BHARUCHA, J.: This reference under s. 256(1) of …
Malcare WordPress Security