259 ITR Archives - taxcaselaw.com

S.C : The question to be decided in these appeals is whether the word ‘assets’ in s. 46(2) of the IT Act, 1961 (referred to hereafter as the ‘Act’), must be understood and construed according to the definition of the word ‘capital assets’ in s. 2(14) of the Act.

Supreme Court Of India N. Bagavathy Ammal vs. CIT & Anr. Sections 2(14), 45(1), 46(1), 46(2), 47(viii) Asst. Year 1970-71 Mrs. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 2606 & 2607 of 2001 27th January, 2003 Counsel Appeared T.L.V. Iyer with Subramonium Prasad, Abhay Kumar & R. Gopalakrishan, for the Appellant : Rajiv Tyagi …

Delhi H.C : The petitioner, a proprietary concern, is the sole selling agent for and on behalf of an organising agent authorised by the State Government to conduct the lottery business.

High Court Of Delhi Gurunanak Enterprises vs. CIT & Anr. Sections 142(2A) Asst. Year Block period 1st April, 1989 to 20th Aug., 1999 D.K. Jain & Mahmood Ali Khan, JJ. Civil Writ Petn. Nos. 7883 of 2001 7th January, 2003 Counsel Appeared Vimal Goel with M. Malik, for the Petitioners : R.D. Jolly with Ajay Jha, …

S.C : The appellants’ challenge under Art. 226 of the order passed by the Appropriate Authorities under s. 269UD(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (referred to hereafter as ‘the Act’) was turned down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. They have, therefore, assailed the decision of the High Court before us.

Supreme Court Of India Hans Raj Agarwal & Anr. vs. CCIT & Ors. Section 269UD, 269UF, 269UG, Art. 226 Ms. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 2121 of 2001 20th December, 2002 Counsel appeared Joseph Vellapally & L. Nageswara with G. Ramakrishna Prasad, K.V. Ramakrishna, Jayanath Muthuraj, K.C. Sudarshan & Mohd. Wasay Khan, …

S.C : The appeal is directed against the judgment of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissing the appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), carried by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal dismissing its appeal.

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Silver & Arts Palace Sections 80HHC Asst. Year 1996-97 Mrs. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 4478 of 2001 18th December, 2002 Counsel Appeared Bhatt with Ms. Neera Gupta, for the Appellant : M.L. Verma with Arvind Minocha, Alok Garg & Mahesh Babu, for the Respondent ORDER …

S.C : The grievance of the appellants in these three appeals arises out of an order passed by the Respondent No. 1 rejecting the appellant’s declarations which the appellants had filed under the “Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998” (referred to briefly as “the Scheme”).

Supreme Court Of India Dr. (Mrs.) Renuka Datla & Ors. vs. CIT & Anr. Sections 1998FA 87(m), 1998FA 88, 1998FA 89, 1998FA 95(i)(c) Asst. Year 1992-93 Mrs. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 4731, 4732 & 4733 of 2000 17th December, 2002 Counsel Appeared M.L. Verma with Mukesh K. Giri & S. Madhu …

S.C : The appellants are cement manufacturers. They challenge the legality and validity of cl. 9A of the Cement Control Order, 1967 (for short, “the Control Order”). Cl. 9A and some other clauses were incorporated by amendments made in the control order in the year 1982.

Supreme Court Of India Shree Digvijay Cement Co. Ltd & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Anr. Sections Art. 265 Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema, JJ Civil Appeal No. 45 to 48 17th December, 2002 Counsel Appeared Advocates : Shanti Bhushan, Raju Ramachandran and S. Ganesh. : Advocates : Parshant Bhushan, Vishal Gupta, Sanjai Pathak, T.K. …

S.C : These appeals arise out of the judgments of the High Court of Bombay dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Supreme Court Of India Director Of Income Tax vs. Bharat Diamond Bourse Section 2(15), 11, 13(1)(c)(ii),13(2)(a), 13(3)(a) Asst. Year 1989-90, 1990-91 Mrs. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 8211 & 8212 of 2001 16th December, 2002 Counsel Appeared R.P. Bhat with Prateek Jalan & B.V. Balram Das, for the Appellant : Sohrab E. …

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, assignment of 50 per cent out of the assessee’s ten per cent share in right, title and interest (excluding capital) in M/s Kinariwala R.J.K. Industries in favour of Sunil Jivanlal Kinariwala Trust under deed of trust dt. 27th Dec., 1973, creates overriding title in favour of the trust and whether the income accruing to the trust can be treated as the income of the assessee ?

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Sunil J. Kinariwala Section 4 Asst. Year 1974-75 Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 1899 of 2002 10th December, 2002 Counsel Appeared Preetesh Kapur, Ranbir Chandra, K.C. Kaushik, Ms. Lakshmi Iyengar, Ms. Sunita Sharma, Ms. Neera Gupta, B.V.B. Das & Ms. Sushma Suri, for the …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of CIT(A) and thereby granting the benefit of s. 10(22) to the assessee ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Lagan Kala Upvan Section 10(22), 260A Asst. Year 1993-94 D.K. Jain & Mahmood Ali Khan, JJ. IT Appeal No. 181 of 2002 5th December, 2002 Counsel Appeared R.D. Jolly with Subhash C. Sharma, for the Appellant : M.L. Goyal with H.L. Dasi, for the Respondent JUDGMENT D.K. JAIN, J. : …

Kerala H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the absence of a certificate from the export house being filed along with the return, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under s. 80HHC with regard to the foreign sales made ?

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. G. Krishnan Nair Sections 80HHC(4A) Asst. Year 1992-93 G. Sivarajan & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ. IT Appeal No. 5 of 2000 4th December, 2002 Counsel Appeared P.K. R. Menon & George K. George, for the Appellant : P. Balachandran, for the Respondent JUDGMENT K. Balakrishnan Nair, J. : The Revenue …

Tag: 259 ITR