Tag: 249 ITR

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for the purpose of determining the income under the head ‘Capital gains’ the assessee was entitled to claim the previous year ending 25th Dec., 1975, under the provisions of s. 3(1) (c) ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Ramesh Khanna Section 3(1)(b) Asst. Year 1976-77 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. No. 129 of 1991 4th January, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sanjiv Khanna with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. : At the instance of the Revenue, the …

S.C : An agreement to sell was entered into on 6th May, 1994, by respondent No. 3 with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of property bearing municipal No. C-590, Defence Colony, New Delhi, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 80 lacs.

Supreme Court Of India Appropriate Authority & Anr. vs. R.C. Chawla & Ors. Sections 269UC, 269UD S. Rajendra Babu & K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 6049 of 1998 10th May, 2001 Counsel Appeared Shail Kumar Dwivedi, for the Appellants : Geetanjali Mohan, Hari Shankar & Navin Chawla, for the Respondents JUDGMENT RAJENDRA BABU, J. : …

Bombay H.C : Whether the CIT(A) was right in directing the ITO to exclude the conveyance expenses and telephone expenses from computation of disallowance under r. 6D of the IT Rules.

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Acme Mfg. Co. Ltd. Section 37(3) S.H. Kapadia & R.M.S. Khandeparkar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 343 of 2000 19th June, 2000 Counsel Appeared R.V. Desai with J.P. Deodhar, for the Appellant : P.N. Modi i/b. Rustomji & Ginwala, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The short point which …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in quashing the order of the CIT(A) holding that the sale proceeds of scrap value are not taxable ?

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Section 256(2) Sudhir Narain & Bhagwan Din, JJ. IT Appln. No. 35 of 1998 11th January, 2001 Counsel Appeared Prakash Krishna, for the Applicant : Rajesh Kumar, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The Department has sought to refer the following two questions of …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest of Rs. 73,449 paid by the assessee can be said to be the capital expenditure not deductible in the computation of the assessee’s business ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Sharpedge Ltd. Sections 37(1) Asst. Year 1971-72 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. No. 161 of 1980 29th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared Ajay Jha, for the Petitioner : Sajan Narain, for the Respondent JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. : Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, following …

S.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in having upheld in entirety the disallowance of the assessee’s claim of a sum of Rs. 8,00,063 on account of demurrage and wharfage recovered from the assessee by the North Western Railways, merely because a claim against the contractor was pending for arbitration ?

Supreme Court Of India Punjab Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT Section 256(2) B.N. Kirpal, U.C. Banerjee & Brijesh Kumar, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 7353 of 2000, arising out of SLP(C) No. 6378 of 1999 12th December, 2000 ORDER BY THE COURT : Special leave granted. 2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, in our …

Madras H.C : Whether the building in which eggs produced by the hens is a factory building in respect of which higher depreciation at double the normal rate should be allowed is the question referred to us by the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee. The assessment year is 1982-83.

High Court Of Madras Siddharth Agencies vs. CIT Sections 32(1), RULE Appendix I, Part I, Item I(2) Asst. year 1982-83 R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ. Tax Case No. 139 of 1988 16th November, 2000 Counsel Appeared P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Subbaraya Aiyar, for the Assessee : Mrs. Chitra Venkataraman, for the Revenue JUDGMENT R. …

S.C : The order under challenge in these appeals by the Revenue followed the earlier judgment of the same High Court in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 113 CTR (Guj) 75 : (1993) 204 ITR 866 (Guj).

Supreme Court Of India Union Of India vs. Satish Panalal Shah Sections 261, 269UC S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 1157 of 1998, 1161 to 1167 of 1998 & 4154 of 1999 6th December, 2000 Counsel Appeared T.L.V. Iyer with Mrs. Laxmi Iyengar, Ajay Sharma, S.K. Dwivedi & Ms. Sushma …
Malcare WordPress Security