258 ITR Archives - taxcaselaw.com

S.C : The amounts of business loss, unabsorbed depreciation, unabsorbed investment allowance, etc. as at the beginning of the accounting year are required to be adjusted and set off to the extent of such brought forward business loss, unabsorbed depreciation, etc. would have been adjusted and set off had the assessee been assessed to tax in the regular way in accordance with the provisions of ss. 28 to 43 of the IT Act, 1961, and not by way of application of the provisions of s. 115J(1) and that the resultant amounts of losses, unabsorbed depreciation, unabsorbed investment allowance, etc. only will be required to be carried forward to the next year

Supreme Court Of India Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT Section 115J Asst. Year 1989-90 Ms. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 823 to 826, 2715 & 2716 of 2000 and 3546 & 3547 of 2001 3rd December, 2002 Counsel Appeared S. Ganesh with K.T. Anantharaman, Vasudevan Raghavan & Dhruv …

S.C : Whether receipt of Rs. 27,93,977 represented income from house property or whether it represented business income.

Supreme Court Of India Killick Nixon Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors. Sections 142(1), 1998FA (No.2) 87(e), 1998FA (No.2) 87(f), 1998FA (No.2) 87(m), 1998FA (No.2) 88, 1998FA (No.2) 90(1), 1998FA (No.2) 94 Asst. Year 1992-93 Mrs. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 2614 of 2001 25th November, 2002 Counsel Appeared Dastur with R. Muralidhar, …

S.C : Whether the probable estate duty payable on the death of the life-tenant has to be taken into account and the value of the property will be diminished by that for charge of wealth-tax in the hands of the remainderman

Supreme Court Of India Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Trustees Of H.E.H. Etc. Section WT 7 N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 4703, 4316, 4912 to 4914, 4918, 4962, 5616, 5636, 5688, 6074, 6170 & 7102 of 1999 and 820, 1794, 1809 to 1811, 2354, 2519, 2640 & 7459 of 2000 1st …

S.C : We see no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the High Court

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Shaily Engineering Plastic Ltd. Sections 154, 1998FA (No. 2) 87(m), 1998FA (No. 2) 88, 1998FA (No. 2) 90(1), 1998FA (No. 2) 95 Asst. Year 1996-97 Ms. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 2118 of 2000 31st October, 2002 Counsel Appeared B.B. Ahuja with Ranbir Chandra & Ms. …

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal having held that the assessee have fulfilled all conditions laid down in section of the IT Act, 1961, r/w r. 6AAA of the IT Rules for deduction of the amount donated to the approved society, which had not come back to the assessee soon after or later on in some form at the other, that Tribunal was justified in law in restoring the matter to the AO on the reasons to the AO on the reasons and grounds given in the order passed on appeal ?

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Chotatingrai Tea & Ors. Etc. Section 35CCA Ms. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 2365 to 2367 of 2000 29th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared S. Rajjappa, K.C. Kaushik & Ms. Sushma Suri, for the Appellant : Sunil Kumar Jain, for the Respondents ORDER By the court : …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the expenditure incurred by the assessee in connection with the writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing proceedings under s. 147 of the IT Act, 1961, and obtaining advice from tax experts in regard thereto fell within the purview of s. 80VV of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Capt. K.C. Saigal Sections 80VV Asst. Year 1976-77, 1977-78 D.K. Jain & Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, JJ. IT Ref. Nos. 230 & 231 of 1983 10th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared R.C. Pandey with Ajay Jha, for the Petitioner : Ashok Chhabra, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.K. JAIN, J. : In these …

Delhi H.C : Challenge in this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to the notice dt. 30th April, 2002, issued under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961

High Court Of Delhi United Electrical Company (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & ORS. Sections 147, 148, 151(1) Asst. Year 1996-97 D.K. Jain & Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, JJ. Civil Writ Petn. No. 5746 & CM No. 9769 of 2002 10th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared M.S. Syali with Satyen Sethi & Manu K. Giri, for the Petitioner : …

Delhi H.C : the petitioner was in default in respect of non-deduction of tax to the extent of Rs. 1,61,63,736 under s. 201(1) of the Act

High Court Of Delhi JCT Ltd. vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Section 254 D.K. Jain & Ms. Sharda Aggarwal, JJ. Civil Writ Petn. No. 3560 of 2002 & CM Nos. 6151, 6523 & 9412 of 2002 10th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared C.S. Aggarwal with Prakash Kumar, for the Petitioner : R.C. Pandey with Ajay …

Madras H.C : ‘interest’ means interest payable in any manner in respect of any moneys borrowed or debt incurred (including a deposit, claim or other similar right or obligation) and includes any service fee or other charge in respect of the moneys borrowed or debt incurred or in respect of any credit facility which has not been utilised.

High Court Of Madras Viswapriya Financial Services & Securities Ltd. vs. CIT Section 2(28A), 194A, 201(1), 201(1A) Asst. Year 1993-94, 1994-95 R. Jayasimha Babu & K. Raviraja Pandian, JJ. TC Nos. 326 to 329 of 1997 9th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared O.P. Vaish for Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan and Ramamani, for the Assessee : Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the objects of the society and the provisions of s. 80P of the IT Act, 1961 the Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest earned by the assessee co-operative society from its members was covered by the provisions of s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the IT Act, 1961, and, therefore, exempt from tax ?

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Krishak Sahkari Ganna Samiti Ltd. Section 80P(2)(a)(i) Asst. Year 1975-76, 1976-77 Binod Kumar Roy & R.B. Misra, JJ. IT Ref. No. 331 of 1982 9th October, 2002 Counsel Appeared Prakash Krishna, for the Applicant : V.K. Rastogi, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : Opinion of this Court is …

Tag: 258 ITR