Tag: 175 ITR

S.C : This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment of a single judge of the High Court dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners whereby they challenged the order dt. 5th Jan., 1982, of respondent No. l, the CBDT, rejecting the application of the appellant-company under s. 80-O of the IT Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”.

Supreme Court Of India Petron Engineering Construction Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. CBDT & Ors. Section 80-O Murari Mohan Dutt & S. Natarajan, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 3531 of 1988 13th December, 1988 Counsel Appeared V. Rajgopal with K.M. Sharma & Randhir Jain, for the Assessees : Dr. V. Gauri Shanker with Ms. A. Subhashini & …

Allahabad H.C : Whether a reference application under s. 256 (1)

High Court Of Allahabad Shree Ram Washer Rahat Industries vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Section 256(2) Om Prakash & R.K. Gulati JJ. Civil Misc. Writ No. 445 of 1988 13th October, 1988 BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The only question for consideration in this petition is, whether a reference application under …

Allahabad H.C : The assessee was not entitled to exemption from tax on the amount of Rs. 60,427 received by way of pension from the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund under the IT Act, 1961

High Court Of Allahabad Smt. Usha Shah vs. CIT B.N. Misra & Om Prakash, JJ. IT Ref. No. 256 of 1983 29th September, 1988 Counsel Appeared S.C. Verma and Vikram Gulati, for the Assessee : None, for the Revenue BY THE COURT : The following question has been referred to this Court under s. 256(1) of …

Rajasthan H.C : No penalty under s. 271(1)(a) of the IT Act. 1961, is leviable in the case of the assessee, a registered firm, because it had no tax liability in terms of the Explanation to s. 271(1) (a) and that the provisions of s. 271(2) did not govern the field in this case

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Adu Ram Sections 271(1)(a), 271(2) Asst. Year 1978-79 J.S. Verma. C.J. & N.C. Kochhar, J. D.B. IT Ref. No. 32 of 1987 14th September, 1988 Counsel Appeared B.R. Arora, for the Revenue BY THE COURT : This is reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, (“the Act”), at …

Allahabad H.C : The petitioners, broadly categorised as Central Government employees, employees of Central Government undertakings, bank employees, State Government employees and General Insurance employees, dispute the taxability of various allowances, namely, dearness allowance, city compensatory allowance, house rent allowance, leave encashment linked with leave travel concession, running allowance, night allowance, etc., in this batch of 20 writ petitions which, for the sake of convenience, are consolidated and disposed of together.

High Court Of Allahabad All India Defence Accounts Association & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 2(24), 17, Art. 226 B.N. Misra & Om Prakash, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 328 of 1988 12th September, 1988 Counsel Appeared V.K. Upadhyaya, for the Petitioner : Bharatji Agrawal & Vinod Rastogi, for the Respondent OM …

Andhra Pradesh H.C : Where the final valuation of the asset is known, on the date of determination of the value of the asset which, of course, has to be determined as on the date of death of the deceased and where the valuation as on the date of death is determined by applying Parks’ formula or the relevant principles of valuation, as the case may be, is there any scope or warrant for introducing the theory of risk and deducting a further amount on account of such risk ?

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh Controller Of Estate Duty vs. Abbas Yar Jung & Ors. A. Seetharama Reddy & M. N. Rao, JJ. Case Referred No. 80 of 1984 5th September, 1988 Counsel Appeared M. S. N. Murthy, for the Revenue : Y. Ratnakar, for the Accountable person M. N. RAO, J.: The question referred for …

Rajasthan H.C : The petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on business in cotton and cotton waste and also acts as commission agent and has its business premises at Bijainagar, District Ajmer.

High Court Of Rajasthan Sugan Chand Vinod Kumar vs. CIT & Anr. Section 131(3)(a), Art. 226 M.B. Sharma & I.S. Israni, JJ. D.B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 1987 of 1988 1st September, 1988 Counsel Appeared Meratwal, Fateh Singh Meratwal & N.K. Maloo, for the Petitioner : V.K. Singhal & R.B. Mathur, for the Respondent B. SHARMA, …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that penalty order passed under s. 271(1)(c) on March 30, 1979, imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,700 was barred by limitation prescribed under s. 275 of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Shiv Das Siremal Sections 271(1)(c), 275 Asst. Year 1972-73 J.S. Verma, C.J. & N.C. Kochhar, J. DB IT Ref. No. 40 of 1983 29th August, 1988 Counsel Appeared Arora, for the Revenue : R. Balia, for the Assessee S. VERMA C. J.: This is a reference under s. 256(1) of …
Malcare WordPress Security