Sec. 2(m), Section 45, Section 5, Wealth Tax Act

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that in acquisition of land proceedings belonging to the assessee made by the State Government and payment of interest on additional compensation made thereof at different points of time due to the fact that appeals were pending are liable to tax at what point of time ?

/

High Court Of Madras Commissioner Of Wealth Tax/Income Tax vs. Smt. T. Girija Ammal Sections 5, 45(5), WT 2(m), Asst.

Section 5

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that moneys retained by the contractee, as a percentage of the bills raised to be paid after the contract is completed is to be treated as income only when the moneys are actually received, even though the appellant is following mercantile system of accounting ?

/

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd. Section 5 Asst. Years 1997-98, 1998-99 P.D. Dinakaran

Sec. 260A, Section 260, Section 90

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the lump sum payment made to the assessee foreign company was taxable at the rate of 20 per cent relying on the Exchange of Notes of 1984 and not considering the terms of the DTAA with Germany and especially, arts. 12(3) and 12(4) of the said agreement and the definition of ‘royalty’ under the IT Act ?

/

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Reiter Ingolsteadt Spinnereimaschinenbau AG Sections 90, 260A Asst. Years 1993-94, 1994-95 P.D. Dinakaran &

Sec. 158BB, Sec. 260A, Section 158

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 50,000 on the true interpretation of the provisions of Chapter XIV-B for making an assessment of undisclosed income for the block period without being based on any evidence or material found during the course of the search relatable to this addition of Rs. 50,000.

/

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Hotel Kumar Palace vs. CIT Sections 158BB, 260A Block period 1st April, 1989 to

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security