Tag: 249 ITR

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 …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 43,403 did not constitute entertainment expenditure within the meaning of s. 37(2B) and was therefore, not liable to be disallowed ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Modern Bakeries India Limited Sections 37(2B), 80J, RULE 19A(3) Asst. Year 1973-74 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. Nos. 283 & 284 of 1981 11th January, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sanjiv Khanna with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. : …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Since a common point involving interpretation of ss. 62 to 68 of the Finance Act, 1997, and s. 297 r/w ss. 147 to 150 of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 1961 Act) arises for adjudication in these petitions, we are deciding them by one order.

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Smt. Vidya Devi vs. CIT Sections 297(2)(g), 1997FA 63, 1997FA 64, 1997FA S 68, 1997FA 69 G.S. Singhvi & Iqbal Singh, JJ. CWP No. 12395 of 1998 26th August, 1998 Counsel Appeared Sanjay Kaushal, for the Petitioner ORDER G.S. SINGHVI, J. : Since a common point involving interpretation of ss. …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to the carry forward of the loss of Rs. 31,355 under the relevant provisions of IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. K.C. Kashyap Sections 72, 139(4) Asst. year 1975-76 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. No. 189 of 1981 6th February, 2001 Counsel AppearedR.C. Pandey with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. : At the instance of Revenue, following question …

Madras H.C : This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to the petitioner on the file of the first respondent in C. No. 1742/1/89/90/Central II, dt. 20th Sept., 1989, and to quash the impugned order passed therein and consequently direct the first respondent to grant relief of waiver of interest to the petitioner for the asst. yr. 1985-86.

High Court Of Madras Coromendal Indag Products India Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr Sections 215, 217(1)(a), Rule 40 Asst. Year 1985-86, N.V. Balasubramanian, J. Writ Petn. No. 13698 of 1989 & WMP No. 19763 of 1989 31st October, 2000 Counsel Appeared P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, for the Petitioner : C.V. Rajan, for the Respondent JUDGMENT N.V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, …

Calcutta H.C: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the assessee and the persons who hired office accommodation from the assessee is based on any relevant evidence or authority ?

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Shambhu Investment (P) Ltd. Sections 22, 28(i) Y.R. Meena & Ashim Kumar Banerjee, JJ. IT Ref. No. 64 of 1993 16th March, 2001 Counsel Appeared Ram Chandra Prasad, for the Revenue : R.K. Murarka, for the Assessee JUDGMENT ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. : In compliance with the direction of this …

Orissa H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, donation of Rs. 1,00,000 made by the assessee to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund was allowable as a business expenditure under s. 37 of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Orissa CIT vs. Industrial Development Corporation Of Orissa Ltd. Section 37(1) Asst. Year 1983-84 R.K. Patra & Ch. P.K. Misra, JJ. S.J.C. No. 102 of 1991 3rd August, 2000 Counsel Appeared A. Mohapatra, for the Petitioner : S.N. Ratho, M.K. Badu & S.S. Rath, for the Respondent JUDGMENT R.K. PATRA, J. : The …

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 …
Malcare WordPress Security