taxcaselaw.com - Page 573 of 1370 - taxcaselaw.com

Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Section 72, Section 80

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 ?

Avijit Das / February 6, 2009

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Nalwa Investment Ltd. Section 72, 80 Asst. Year 1995-96, Badar Durrez Ahmed & Rajiv […]

Sec. 271(1)(c )

Bombay H.C : The assessee’s case clearly attracted the application of s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and as a sequel thereto confirming the penalty and further giving directions to the ITO that the quantum be worked out as per the tax ultimately fixed by the Tribunal in assessee’s quantum appeal

Avijit Das / February 5, 2009

High Court Of Bombay Jayant Vegoils & Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1980-81 F.I. Rebello &

Sec. 271(1)(c )

Bombay H.C : The assessee’s case clearly attracted the application of s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 and as a sequel thereto confirming the penalty and further giving directions to the ITO that the quantum be worked out as per the tax ultimately fixed by the Tribunal in assessee’s quantum appeal

Avijit Das / February 5, 2009

High Court Of Bombay Jayant Vegoils & Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1980-81 F.I. Rebello &

Income Tax Case Laws, Section 254, Section 48, Section 55

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal has rightly applied the principles of finding out the cost of right shares laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of Miss Dhun Dadabhoy Kapadia vs. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 651 (SC)

Avijit Das / February 2, 2009

High Court Of Gujarat Affection Investments Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 48, 55(2), 254(1) Asst. Year 1993-94

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Delhi H.C : Corporate membership itself meant it was for the benefit of the assessee and not for any particular employee as it had a right to nominate and substitute an employee at any point of time

Avijit Das / January 30, 2009

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Samtel Color Ltd. Section 37(1) Badar Durrez Ahmed & Rajiv Shakdher, JJ. IT Appeal

Sec. 37(1), Sec. 37(4)

Rajasthan H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) reducing the disallowance of Rs. 15,40,667 made by the AO in respect of expenditure on guest house to Rs. 4,07,522 even though expenses allowed are not allowable under the specific provisions of ss. 37(4) and 37(5) of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / January 30, 2009

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Section 37(1), 37(4), 37(5) Asst. Year 1991-92 A.M. Kapadia & Sangeet

Delhi H.C : the deletion of Rs. 71 lakhs received by the assessee on account of share application money by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which has been sustained by the Tribunal.

Avijit Das / January 30, 2009

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Gangour Investment Ltd. Assessment Year : 1996-97 Section : 68 Badar Durrez Ahmed And

Bombay H.C : The Hon’ble Tribunal erred in confirming the order of CIT(A) and allowing the depreciation to the assessee @ 50 per cent and 40 per cent respectively for asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1996-97 on the value of trucks/dumpers owned by the assessee and further failed to appreciate that the assessee was only a civil contractor and was not engaged in the business of, wisely out asset (sic) i.e., trucks/dumpers transportation

Avijit Das / January 27, 2009

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. S.C. Thakur & Bros. Section 32, IT Rule Appendix I, Item III(2)(ii) Asst. Year

Section 69, Sec. 292C, Section 132, Section 292

Bombay H.C : Whether the addition of Rs. 20 lacs as an income-tax advance said to have been made by the assessee to Mr. Bhupendra Chedda is based on legal evidence ?

Avijit Das / January 27, 2009

High Court Of Bombay Surendra M. Khandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Ors. Section 69, 132(4A), 292C F.I.

Sec. 36(1)(iii)

Bombay H.C : Whether in view of facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal is justified in allowing the interest on the borrowed fund under s. 36(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961, when the share of the group company which was acquired was not shown as stock-in-trade but as investment ?

Avijit Das / January 22, 2009

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Srishti Securities (P) Ltd. Section 36(1)(iii) F.I. Rebello & R.S. Mohite, JJ. IT Appeal

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 572 573 574 … 1,370 Next →

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

Scroll to Top