Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

262 ITR

S.C : The assessee built a house in a suburb of Kolkata between the years 1981 to 1983. She filed a return in respect of the asst. yr. 1982-83 in which she disclosed that she had invested an amount of Rs. 1,75,000 in the construction of the house.

Avijit Das / July 7, 2003

Supreme Court Of India Smt. Amiya Bala Paul vs. CIT Sections 55A, 131(1), 133(6), 142(2), CPC 75, CPC Order 26, […]

Section 147, Section 148

Uttaranchal H.C : The petitioner in this petition took exception to and questioned notices dt. 29th May, 2001 (annexures marked as Exts. 13 to 17) issued under s. 147 r/w s. 148

Avijit Das / June 26, 2003

High Court Of Uttaranchal Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors. Sections 147, proviso, 148 Asst. Year

Section 50, Section 54E

Gauhati H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in allowing exemption under s. 54E of the IT Act, 1961, on gains arising out of transfer of depreciated assets, when unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years was claimed and allowed to be set off ?

Avijit Das / June 24, 2003

High Court Of Gauhati CIT vs. Assam Petroleum Industries (P)Ltd. Sections 50, 54E P.P. Naolekar, C.J. & Amitava Roy, J.

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Calcutta H.C : Whether a building of a cold storage is a plant. Mr. Soumitra Pal, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, had sought to draw a distinction between a plant and a building

Avijit Das / June 11, 2003

High Court Of Calcutta CIT vs. Shree Gopikishan Industries (P)Ltd. Sections 32(1), 43(3) D.K. Seth & R.N. Sinha, JJ. IT

Sec. 32(1), Section 32

Gauhati H.C : whether the building in question is a “plant” and therefore the assessee is entitled to claim higher rate of depreciation

Avijit Das / June 6, 2003

High Court Of Gauhati Nowrangroy Metals (P) Ltd. vs. JCIT Sections 32(1), 43(3) P.P. Naolekar, C.J. & I.A. Ansari, J.

Income Tax Case Laws

Karnataka H.C :A search under s. 132 of the IT Act bars a person from making the disclosure in respect of the previous year in which the search took place and also for any earlier previous year. In case, a search warrant is issued in the name of one person, can others who also reside at the same premises and whose statements may have been recorded during the course of the search, make a disclosure of their income ?

Avijit Das / May 27, 2003

High Court Of Karnataka Mysore Plantations Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. Sections FA 62, FA 64, FA 65, FA 68

Kerala H.C : Petitioner is a private limited company with unlimited liability engaged in the business of direct selling of principally fast-moving consumer goods. Its registered office is at New Delhi. It started commercial operation in May, 1998.

Avijit Das / May 22, 2003

High Court Of Kerala Amway India Enterprises vs. Union Of India & Anr. Section 131 P.R. Raman, J. O.P. No.

Gauhati H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the CIT(A) decision ignoring the fact that the Central sales- tax and State sales-tax collected by the assessee in the course of its business form part of the trading or business receipt ?

Avijit Das / May 22, 2003

High Court Of Gauhati CIT vs. India Carbon Ltd. Section 43B P.P. Naolekar C. & I.A. Ansari, JJ. IT Appeal

Sec. 40A(2), Section 40A

Allahabad H.C : Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the increase of only Rs. 100 per month in the salaries of three employees, namely, Shri Ali Ahmed, Mohd. Ali and Ajaz Ahmad, shall be reasonable or is arbitrary and in ignorance of the conditions laid down in s. 40A(2) of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / May 13, 2003

High Court Of Allahabad Khan Carpets vs. CIT Sections 40A(2) Sudhir Narain & D.P. Gupta, JJ. IT Ref. No. 111

Jharkhand H.C : When this writ petition came up for admission on the adjourned date, it was submitted by counsel for the parties that the pleadings are complete and the writ petition itself may be heard and finally disposed of. Accordingly, we have heard the writ petition in full and the judgment is being pronounced thereon.

Avijit Das / May 8, 2003

High Court Of Jharkhand Adityapur Industrial Area Development Authority vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 4, 10(20), 10(20A), Art.

Post pagination

1 2 … 14 Next →

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

Scroll to Top