Wealth Tax Act, Sec. 2(ea), Section 7

Madras H.C : The Tribunal was right in law in confirming the valuation of properties as per r. 20 instead of r. 3 of Sch. III to the WT Act, 1957, without taking into account the land comprised in pathway, sit out, servant quarters, swimming pool, rest rooms, club area, pump house, tennis court, car and scooter shed, etc., as built up area

High Court Of Madras Binny Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Section WT 2(ea)(i), WT 7, WT 7(4), WT

Income Tax Case Laws

Madras H.C : The provision for encashment of leave of Rs. 1.19 lakhs claimed by the assessee was allowable on the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 325 : (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) since in the assessees case the liability was only a contingent liability as clearly mentioned in the tax audit report and not an ascertained liability which was capable of being quantified with reasonable certainty

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Panasonic Home Appliances K. Raviraja pandian & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal)

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security