taxcaselaw.com - Page 690 of 1370 - taxcaselaw.com

Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 273A

Bombay H.C : The assessee could not get any relief in respect of additions of Rs. 3,54,915 except those of Rs. 47,200 added in the name of Mr. S.G. Jhaveri and Mr. S.C. Jhaveri, HUF.

Avijit Das / July 10, 2006

High Court Of Bombay Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri vs. Union Of India & Anr. Sections 271(1)(c), 273A V.C. Daga & J.P. […]

Allahabad H.C : wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more AOs subordinate to him

Avijit Das / July 10, 2006

High Court Of Allahabad Radico Khaitan Ltd. vs. CIT & Ors. Section 127 Sushil Harkauli & Vikram Nath, JJ. Writ

Delhi H.C : The taxable (income) of the assessee for the financial year 1994-95 relevant to asst. yr. 1995-96 has escaped assessment. Issue notice under s. 148

Avijit Das / July 10, 2006

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Mesco Laboratories Ltd. Section 147 Asst. Year 1995-96 Madan B. Lokur & Vipin Sanghi,

Section 147, Section 148

Madras H.C : The reopening of the assessment under s. 147 of the IT Act on the basis of the valuation report is not proper

Avijit Das / July 10, 2006

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. V.T. Rajendran Sections 147, 148 Asst. Year 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S.

Delhi H.C : A bare reading of this provision makes it clear that the prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT suo motu under it, is that the order of the ITO is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The CIT has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the AO sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

Avijit Das / July 10, 2006

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Vikram Aditya & Associates (P)Ltd. Sections 94(7), 263 Asst. Year 2001-02 Madan B. Lokur

Sec. 201(1), Sec. 201(1A), Section 201

Delhi H.C : the respondent-assessee had taken on lease a premises for the purposes of its head office

Avijit Das / July 10, 2006

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Adidas India Marketing (P) Ltd. Sections 191, 201(1), 201(1A) Asst. Years 2000-01, 2001-02 Madan

Kerala H.C : The amount of Rs. 45,000 paid by the assessee for taking institutional membership in the Cochin Yacht Club is a capital expenditure not allowable as business expenditure under the IT Act

Avijit Das / July 7, 2006

High Court Of Kerala Framatone Connector OEN Ltd. vs. DCIT Section 37(1) K.S. Radhakrishnan & V. Ramkumar, JJ. IT Appeal

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Karnataka H.C : Whether the redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000 paid by the assessee in respect of asst. yr. 197778 to the excise authorities for the infraction of law to release the seized goods, can be treated as business expenditure ?

Avijit Das / July 7, 2006

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & ANR. vs. Jayaram Metal Industries Section 37(1) Asst. Year 1977-78 R. Gururajan & Jawad

Delhi H.C : Whereafter came the impugned orders dt. 29th Nov., 1994 by which the Appropriate Authority invoked its powers under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and purchased the property in question in consideration of the amount disclosed in the applications seeking permission

Avijit Das / July 7, 2006

High Court Of Delhi Dr. Anand Prakash vs. Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department & Ors. Section 269UD T.S. Thakur &

Sec. 2(13), Sec. 28(i)

Punjab & Haryana H.C : the investment in units of JM Mutual Fund was merely to get benefit of dividend income under s. 10(33)

Avijit Das / July 7, 2006

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Vaneet Jain vs. CIT & Anr. Sections 2(13), 28(i) Asst. Year 2001-02 Adarsh Kumar

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 689 690 691 … 1,370 Next →

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

Scroll to Top