Section 69, Sec 142A, Section 142

Allahabad H.C : The Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition made by the AO on account of difference between the cost of construction, estimated by the valuation officer and that disclosed by the assessee being unexplained investment under s. 69 of the IT Act, by placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Smt. Amiya Bala Paul vs. CIT (2003) 182 CTR (SC) 489 : (2003) 262 ITR 407 (SC) without taking into consideration the amended provisions of s. 142A(1) of the IT Act, introduced with retrospective effect ?

/

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Jeevandeep Apartments (P) Ltd. Section 69, 142A Prakash Krishna & S. K. Gupta, JJ.

Sec. 2(47), Section 45, Section 47

Karnataka H.C : Whether the colorable device adopted by the assessee in admitting two new partners namely, Sri. M. Venkataramaiah and Smt. Sujatha Venkataramaiah and permitting all the old partners to retire from the firm by receiving a consideration amount of Rs. 16,55,647 from the old partners (sic) would amount to a transfer attracting the capital gains provision as per the IT Act ?

/

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & ANR. vs. Gurunath Talkies Section 2(47), 45(3), 45(4), 47(ii) Asst. Year 1995-96 D.V. Shylendra

Income Tax Case Laws, Section 5, Section 69A

Punjab And Haryana H.C : the Hon’ble Tribunal was legally right in upholding the decision of the learned CIT(A) based on the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of CIT vs. President Industries (2000) 158 CTR (Guj) 372 : (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj), when the facts of the present case and case relied upon were altogether different

/

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana CIT vs. Dhani Ram Section 5, 69A Asst. Year 1999-2000 Adarsh Kumar Goel &

Section 68, Sec. 260A, Section 250

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether Tribunal was justified in setting aside the issues to the file of CIT(A) without appreciating the findings of CIT(A) on record in addition to facts and evidences and also being a final fact finding body and that too without giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant by denying hearing on the first adjournment application by the counsel that too under unavoidable circumstances ?

/

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Emkay Industries Ltd. vs. CIT Section 68, 250(4), 260A Asst. Year 2004-05 Adarsh Kumar

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security