Section 254

Bombay H.C : The Tribunal is for more than one assessment year, then cumulative tax effect should be taken into consideration. Accordingly it is submitted by the Revenue that in the present case, the Tribunal in the case of Shri Arvind Kedar has passed a combined order for asst. yrs. 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88 and a combined order in the case of Shri Ajay Kedar for asst. yrs. 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88

High Court Of Bombay : Nagpur Bench CIT vs. Arvind Nilkanth Kedar Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 J.P.

Sec. 80P(2)(a)(i), Section 80P

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is legally justified in holding that the income earned by the assessee-co-operative society from recovery of pay made from the staff, recovery of training cost and security forfeiture from staff is not attributable to its business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members and hence not deductible under s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Allahabad Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. CIT Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Asst. Year 1988-89 R.K. Agrawal & Ms. Bharati

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security