Section 256

Bombay H.C : There is no material to hold that the difference between the duty assessed by the Customs Department under s. 30(b) of the Sea Customs Act and the contract price shown by the assessee in the contract resulted in any additional income liable to income-tax to the assessee in the face of the finding of ‘proven underinvoicing’ by the assessee, given by the Supreme Court

/

High Court Of Bombay : Nagpur Bench CIT vs. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. Section 256(2) Asst. Year 1953-54 […]

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 206A, Section 206

Delhi H.C : No new material has come on record nor any new information has been received by the AO and it was only a case of fresh application of mind by the AO to the same sets of facts which tantamount to a change of opinion and therefore, it cannot be the basis for reopening of a completed assessment and the Tribunal also deleted the additions on merits

/

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Feather Foam Enterprises (P) Ltd. Section 260A Assessment year 1996-97 Madan B. Lokur &

Income Tax Case Laws

Karnataka H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the Explanation below r. 1 of Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 along with the provisions of r. 1A of the said Schedule, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that ‘unappropriated profits’ shown in the P&L a/c of the head office of the assessee company at United Kingdom cannot be excluded from the ‘capital’ to be computed for the purpose of surtax assessment ?

/

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Eskayef Ltd. Section SURTAX Sch. II, R. 1(III) Asst. Year 1980-81 R. Gururajan &

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 158BD

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 21,00,094 made by the AO on account of unexplained investments made by the assessee in the purchase of plots, properties and construction of house on the basis of seized documents ?

/

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Ramesh Bhayana Section 158BD Block period 1988-89 to 1998-99 M.M. Kumar &

Sec. 271(1)(c )

Karnataka H.C : The assessee withdrew its claim for depreciation, extra-shift allowance and investment allowance etc., only after it was confronted with full evidence with regard to the fact that the impugned machinery had not even reached its premises before the close of the relevant accounting year and only after exhausting itself in proving genuineness of its claim, the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty under s. 271(1)(c)

/

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Sree Valliappa Textiles Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1985-86 R. Gururajan & Anand Byrareddy, JJ.

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security