Tag: 257 ITR

Calcutta H.C : The petitioner-assessee has in the instant writ application questioned the order of approval passed by respondent No. 1 contained in his communication dt. 8th Nov., 2001, being Annexure P-21 whereby special audit under s. 142(2A) of the IT Act, 1961, has been ordered and a decision taken to appoint an auditor.

High Court Of Calcutta Bata India Ltd. & Anr. vs. CIT & Ors. Section 142(2A), Art. 226 Asst. Year 1988-89 M.H.S. Ansari, J. Writ Petn. No. 2593 of 2001 9th September, 2002 Counsel Appeared R.P. Bajoria, J.P. Khaitan, C.M. Ghorawal & Sandeep Chowdhury, for the Petitioners : Rupendra Nath Mitra, D.K. Shome & Pallav Banerjee, for …
Read More...

S.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in holding that excise duty refund is not assessable under s. 41(1) of the IT Act.

Supreme Court Of India Polyflex (India) (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 41(1) Asst. Year 1989-90 S. Rajendra Babu, K.G. Balakrishnan & P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 823 of 2001 6th September, 2002 Counsel Appeared Dhruv Mehta, Ms. Shobha & Ms. Anu Mehta for M/s K.L. Mehta & Co., for the Appellant : R.P. Bhatt …
Read More...

Kerala H.C : The petitioner is a charitable society which was enjoying exemption under s. 80G of the IT Act until the year 1998-99.

High Court Of Kerala The Mundakapadam Mandirams Society vs. CIT Sections 11(5), 13(1)(d), 80G Asst. Year 2000-2001 C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. O.P. No. 32719 of 2000 5th September, 2002 Counsel Appeared P. Balachandran & John Ramesh K.I. John, for the Petitioner : P.K.R. Menon, for the Respondent JUDGMENT C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. : The petitioner is …
Read More...

S.C : The appellants before us received deposits from Amar Singh, Gurdev Singh and Hardev Singh on different dates in the year 1985 and this fact was disclosed in the income-tax return filed for the asst. yr. 1986-87.

Supreme Court Of India General Finance Co. & Anr. vs. CIT Sections 276DD, GEN Cl. 6 Asst. Year 1986-87 S. Rajendra Babu & P. Venkatarama Reddi, JJ. Criminal Appeal No. 442 of 1994 4th September, 2002 Counsel Appeared Harbans Lal with Ashok Mahajan, for the Appellant : S. Ganesh with K.C. Kaushik & B.V. Balram Das, …
Read More...

Madras H.C : Whether the Tribunal was right in having applied the proviso to s. 7(4) of the WT Act, 1957, in respect of a part of the property and not to the whole of it

High Court Of Madras M.K. Kuppuraj (HUF) vs. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Sections WT 7(4) Asst. Year 1981-82 R. Jayasimha Babu & K.P. Sivasubramaniam, JJ. T.C. No. 511 of 1993 21st August, 2002 Counsel Appeared R. Meenakshisundaram, for the Assessee : T.C.A. Ramanujam, for the Revene ORDER R. Jayasimha Babu, J. : The question referred to …
Read More...

Calcutta H.C : Whether, on a true and proper interpretation of s. 37(1) r/w s. 37(3) and s. 37(4) of the IT Act, 1961, the claim for depreciation, repairs and maintenance and rent of the guest-house can be disallowed as falling within the scope of the said provisions ?

High Court Of Calcutta Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 30, 32(1), 37(1), 37(4), 260A Asst. Year 1994-95 Ajoy Nath Ray & Indira Banerjee, JJ. IT Appeal No. 46 of 2002 13th August, 2002 ORDER BY THE COURT : This is a petition of appeal under s. 260A seeking to challenge the decision of the Tribunal …
Read More...

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the rectification of the order dt. 11th March, 1985, under s. 154 by the order dt. 20th Sept.,1985, is not barred by limitation ?

High Court Of Madras Southern Industrial Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 154 Asst. Year 1977-78 R. Jayasimha Babu & K.P. Sivasubramaniam, JJ. T.C. No. 1511 of 1992 12th August, 2002 Counsel Appeared P.P.S. Janardhanaraja, for the Applicant : T.C.A. Ramanujam, for the Respondent ORDER R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. : The question referred for our consideration is …
Read More...

Calcutta H.C : Although we are not at present the regular tax Bench, we have been assembling specially and hearing this appeal under s. 260A and the stay application in relation thereto for the past nine days. Since we have assembled only on Friday mornings the span of time which we have spent is nearly two and a half months.

High Court Of Calcutta General Electric Co. P.L.C. vs. CIT Sections 260A Ajoy Nath Ray & Maharaj Sinha, JJ. G.A. No. 769 of 2002 2nd August, 2002 ORDER BY THE COURT : Although we are not at present the regular tax Bench, we have been assembling specially and hearing this appeal under s. 260A and the …
Read More...

Calcutta H.C : Although we are not at present the regular tax Bench, we have been assembling specially and hearing this appeal under s. 260A and the stay application in relation thereto for the past nine days. Since we have assembled only on Friday mornings the span of time which we have spent is nearly two and a half months.

High Court Of Calcutta General Electric Co. P.L.C. vs. CIT Sections 260A Ajoy Nath Ray & Maharaj Sinha, JJ. G.A. No. 769 of 2002 2nd August, 2002 ORDER BY THE COURT : Although we are not at present the regular tax Bench, we have been assembling specially and hearing this appeal under s. 260A and the …
Read More...
Malcare WordPress Security