Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

249 ITR

Sec. 269UC, Section 279

S.C : Property bearing No. N-84, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi, was agreed to be sold by one K.S.R. Chari & Smt. Chari who were permanently residing at Bangalore to Ms. Shashi Sehgal.

Avijit Das / October 10, 2001

Supreme Court Of India Appropriate Authority & Ors. vs. Shashi Sehgal & Ors. Sections 269UC, 279UD S. Rajendra Babu & […]

Sec. 269UC, Sec. 269UD

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.

Avijit Das / May 10, 2001

Supreme Court Of India Appropriate Authority & Anr. vs. R.C. Chawla & Ors. Sections 269UC, 269UD S. Rajendra Babu &

Sec. 269UC, Sec. 269UD

S.C : The Appropriate Authority by an order made on 30th Jan., 1994 under s. 269UD ordered the purchase by the Central Government of the said property for the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell.

Avijit Das / May 10, 2001

Supreme Court Of India Appropriate Authority & Anr. vs. R.C. Chawla & Ors. Sections 269UC, 269UD S. Rajendra Babu &

Sec. 269UC, Sec. 269UD

S.C : Property bearing No. N-84, Greater Kailash I, New Delhi, was agreed to be sold by one K.S.R. Chari & Smt. Chari who were permanently residing at Bangalore to Ms. Shashi Sehgal.

Avijit Das / May 10, 2001

Supreme Court Of India Appropriate Authority & Ors. vs. Shashi Sehgal & Ors. Sections 269UC, 279UD S. Rajendra Babu &

Income Tax Case Laws

S.C : This decision pertains to FERA, hence not given.

Avijit Das / May 4, 2001

Supreme Court Of India Shobha Suresh Jumani vs. Appellate Tribunal, Forfeited Property & Anr. B.N. Kirpal, M.B. Shah & Mrs.

Income Tax Case Laws

S.C : This decision pertains to FERA, hence not given.

Avijit Das / May 4, 2001

Supreme Court Of India Shobha Suresh Jumani vs. Appellate Tribunal, Forfeited Property & Anr. B.N. Kirpal, M.B. Shah & Mrs.

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the difference of Rs. 8,21,950 on the sale of the jewellery by the assessee to its 12 wholly-owned subsidiary companies was not liable to gift-tax under the provisions of the GT Act 1958.

Avijit Das / May 2, 2001

Supreme Court On India Reva Investment (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Gift Tax Section 4(1)(a) Asst. year 1976-77 S.P. Bharucha

Gift Tax Act, Sec. 4, Sec. 4(1)(a)

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in coming to the conclusion that the difference of Rs. 8,21,950 on the sale of the jewellery by the assessee to its 12 wholly-owned subsidiary companies was not liable to gift-tax under the provisions of the GT Act 1958.

Avijit Das / May 2, 2001

Supreme Court On India Reva Investment (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner Of Gift Tax Section 4(1)(a) Asst. year 1976-77 S.P. Bharucha

Calcutta H.C : Notice dt. 22nd June, 1979, issued by the respondent-authority under s. 263 of the IT Act served on the assessee, the petitioner above named, has been impugned before me in this writ petition.

Avijit Das / March 28, 2001

High Court Of Calcutta Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. Sections 263(1), Explanation Asst. Year 1974-75

Calcutta H.C : Notice dt. 22nd June, 1979, issued by the respondent-authority under s. 263 of the IT Act served on the assessee, the petitioner above named, has been impugned before me in this writ petition.

Avijit Das / March 28, 2001

High Court Of Calcutta Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors. Sections 263(1), Explanation Asst. Year 1974-75

Post pagination

1 2 … 20 Next →

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

Scroll to Top