260 ITR Archives - taxcaselaw.com

S.C : The assessee is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and carrying on business in agricultural activities and dairy farming.

Supreme Court Of India Delhi Farming And Construction (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 2(24)(vi), 2(45), 104, 109 Asst. Year 1974-75, 1976-77 Mrs. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 7525 to 7527 of 2001 26th March, 2003 Counsel Appeared : Ranjit Kumar with Ms. Anu Mohla, for the Appellant : T.L.V. Iyer with P.S. …

S.C : The appellant No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, with its registered office in Delhi.

Supreme Court Of India National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation Of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 80P(2)(a)(iii) Mrs. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 6170 of 2001 25th March, 2003 Counsel Appeared Parasaran with G. Umapathy, Pradeep Ranjan Tiwary & Rakesh K. Sharma, for the Appellants : R.P. …

S.C : The appellant No. 1 is a co-operative society registered under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, with its registered office in Delhi.

Supreme Court Of India National Agricultural Co-Operative Marketing Federation Of India Ltd. & Anr. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 80P(2)(a)(iii) Mrs. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 6170 of 2001 25th March, 2003 Counsel Appeared Parasaran with G. Umapathy, Pradeep Ranjan Tiwary & Rakesh K. Sharma, for the Appellants : R.P. …

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was legally correct in upholding the order of the CIT(A) directing the ITO to assess the income of the periods separately ?

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Ratan Lal Garib Das Section 187(2)(a) Asst. Year 1979-80 M. Katju & Prakash Krishna, JJ. IT Ref. No. 73 of 1984 20th February, 2003 JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : This is an IT reference under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, in which the following questions have been referred …

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the appellant had transferred the property situated at Gamdevi during the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1996-97?

High Court Of Bombay Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia vs. CIT Sections 2(47)(v), 45(1) Asst. Year 1996-97 S.H. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 24 of 2003 13th February, 2003 Counsel Appeared S.E. Dastur with P.J. Pardiwala, F.V. Irani & N.R. Modi i/b Rustomji & Ginwala, for the Appellant : R.V. Desai with P.S. Jetley i/b …

S.C : This appeal is directed against a judgment dt. 29th Nov., 1990, of the Gujarat High Court allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent seeking exemption from levy of electricity duty and for quashing the orders of thauthorities under the Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958

Supreme Court Of India State Of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Bombay Electricity Duty Act, 1958, s. 3(2)(vii)(b) M.B. Shah & Arun Kumar, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 3658 of 1994 29th January, 2003 Counsel Appeared S.K. Dholakia with Ms. Hemantika Wahi & Ms. Aruna Gupta, for the Appellants : Bhaskar P. Gupta …

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law in confirming the penalty only in respect of an amount of Rs. 31,000 and thereby cancelling the balance penalty levied under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Lallubhai Jogibhai Patel Section 271(1)(c) R.K. Abichandani & A.L. Dave, JJ. IT Ref. No. 183 of 1988 23rd January, 2003 Counsel Appeared B.B. Naik, for the Petitioner : Manish J. Shah for J.P. Shah, for the Respondent JUDGMENT R.K. Abichandani, J. : The Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench “C”, has referred the …

S.C : The search party was headed by one Harinder Kumar who had been appointed as the authorised officer for the purposes of s. 132 of the Act by the CIT.

Supreme Court Of India Union Of India & Ors. vs. Vipan Kumar Jain & Ors. Sections 132 Mrs. Ruma Pal & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 1093 of 2002 23rd January, 2003 Counsel Appeared M.L. Verma with Preetish Kapoor, Ms. Neera Gupta & B.V. Balram Das, for the Appellants : None, for the respondents ORDER …

Bombay H.C : The notice has been given under s. 226(3) of the IT Act, 1961, directing the branch manager to pay to the first respondent an amount of Rs. 49,38,880 allegedly due from the petitioners as assessee in default on account of income-tax, penalty, etc.

High Court Of Bombay Relay Shipping Agency Ltd. & Anr. vs. Tax Recovery Officer & Anr. Sections 226(3)(vi) S.H. Kapadia & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 180 of 2003 22nd January, 2003 Counsel Appeared F.V. Irani with R. Murlidharan i/b Mahimtura & Co., for the Petitioners : V.H. Kantharia I/B K.B. Rao, for the Respondents …

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the additional conveyance allowance paid by the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short, “LIC”) to its Development Officers in terms of the norms of the business fetched by them as per Circular dt. 3rd March, 1987, issued by the LIC is exempt under s. 10(14)

High Court Of Rajasthan Life Insurance Corporation Of India vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 10(14), Rule 2BB Asst. Year 1990-91 N.N. Mathur & H.R. Panwar, JJ. Civil Special Appeal No. 413 of 2000 22nd January, 2003 Counsel Appeared : Vineet Kothari & Anjay Kothari, for the LIC of India : Sundeep Bhandawat & J.L. …

Tag: 260 ITR