Section 4

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified on facts and in law in confirming the action of CIT(A) and in sustaining the addition of an illogical and unreasonable income of Rs. 1,28,960 without passing a speaking order and without considering various arguments, contentions and evidences produced before the Tribunal and thus the order of the Tribunal is bad in law and illegal

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Echo Shella vs. CIT Section 4 Asst. Year 1992-93 Adarsh Kumar Goel & Rajesh

Sec. 269SS, Sec. 269T, Sec. 275(1)(c), Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 273B

Rajasthan H.C : The penalty proceedings and the order passed by the Jt. CIT under s. 271D are vitiated being time-barred by virtue of the provisions of s. 275(1)(c) of the Act held to be applicable whereas the case of the assessee is covered under s. 275(1)(a) of the Act since the penalty proceedings pertained to the assessment order under appeal and s. 275(1)(c) was not applicable to it

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Hissaria Bros. Section 269SS, 269T, 271D, 271E, 273B, 275(1)(c) Asst. Year 1993-94 to 1995-96

Sec. 37(3)

Karnataka H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the value of presentation articles bearing the name of the appellant-company, despite not being intended for distribution, for promoting or boosting the appellant’s sales but for extending general courtesy to business associates has any advertisement value so as to suffer consequence of provision of r. 6B of the IT Rules, 1962 ?

High Court Of Karnataka Motor Industries Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT Section 37(3), Rule 6B, Asst. Year 1990-91 R. Gururajan &

Section 32AB

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the profits of eligible business computed in accordance with the requirements of Parts II and III of Sch. VI to the Companies Act, 1956 should be reduced by income from coffee sales, arecanut sales, rent receipts, interest and subsidy from Tea Board for the purpose of computing the deduction allowable under sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (b) of s. 32AB(1) ?

High Court Of Kerala (Full Bench) Parry Agro Industries Ltd. vs. CIT Section 32AB V.K. Bali, C.J.; P.R. Raman &

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security