284 ITR – taxcaselaw.com

S.C : This was a question of fact which was not required to be examined in an appeal under s. 260A

Supreme Court Of India R.R. Holding (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. Sections 244(1A), 260A Arijit Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 3088 of 2006 21st July, 2006 Counsel Appeared C.S. Agarwal with Rahul Gupta, Ms. Nupur Kanungo & Bhargava V. Desai, for the Appellant : Mohan Parasaran with Anuvrat Sharma, Rajshekhar Rao, …

S.C : The assessee is entitled to deduction under s. 80HHC of the IT Act even though the export business resulted in a loss of Rs. 6,372

Supreme Court Of India P.R. Prabhakar vs. CIT Section 80HHC Asst. Year 1990-91 S.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 877 of 200 18th July, 2006 Counsel Appeared C.A. Sundaram with R.K. Singh, H. Gupta, Ms. Deepa Rai & K.V. Mohan, for the Appellant : Rajiv Dutta with M.F. Humayunisa, Saket Singh & B.V. …

AAR : Whether any tax liability especially liability for deducting any tax at source arises on payment which are remittable to non-resident by the applicant as per agreement.

Authority For Advance Rulings Rajiv Malhotra, In Re Sections DTAA between India & France, Art. 23, 4, 5(2)(b), 9(1)(i), 195 Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J., Chairman & A.S. Narang, Member AAR No. 671 of 2005 3rd July, 2006 Counsel Appeared K.R. Manjani, for the Applicant : None, for the CIT concerned Ruling A.S. Narang, Member : …

Gauhati H.C : Whether in such cases the assessees are entitled to relief under s. 43B(b) of the Act

High Court Of Gauhati CIT vs. George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. Section 36(1)(va), 43B(b) P.G. Agarwal & T.N.K. Singh, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 76, 56, 91, 80 & 84 of 2003 and 2 of 2005 26th June, 2006 Counsel Appeared : K.P. Sarma & U. Bhuyan, for the Appellant : Dr. Ashok Saraf, Ms. N. Hawelia, Ms. …

Gauhati H.C : The petitioner was the income-tax assessee under the Act and for the asst. yr. 1987-88 the petitioner was required to file its return on or before 31st July, 1987, under s. 139 of the Act

High Court Of Gauhati Assam Tribune vs. DCIT Sections 271(1)(a), 273B Asst. Year 1987-88 P.G. Agarwal & T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ. IT Appeal No. 2 of 2003 26th June, 2006 Counsel Appeared Dr. A.K. Saraf with S. Chetia, D. Baruah, S. Agarwalla & K. Jain, for the Assessee : U. Bhuyan, for the Revenue JUDGMENT P.G. …

Kerala H.C : There was no transfer of an interest in immovable property so as to attract capital gains tax. “Capital gains” in the context s. 45 of the Act means any profit or gain arising from the transfer of a capital asset

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. C.F. Thomas Sections 2(47), 45 Asst. Year 1989-90 K.S. Radhakrishnan & V. Ramkumar, JJ. IT Ref. No. 134 of 1999 6th June, 2006 Counsel Appeared P.K.R. Menon & George K. George, for the Applicant : V.V. Asokan & K.I. Mayankutty Mather, for the Respondents JUDGMENT V. Ramkumar, J. : IT …

Kerala H.C : Assessee claimed an amount of Rs. 30,00,000 by way of deduction under s. 33AB

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. Parry Agro Industries Ltd. K.S. Radhakrishnan & V. Ramkumar, JJ. Section 33AB(2) Asst. Year 1994-95 IT Appeal No. 137 of 2001 31st May, 2006 Counsel Appeared P.K.R. Menon & George K. George, for the Appellant JUDGMENT K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. : Assessee is public limited company engaged in the business of …

Gauhati H.C : Whether in view of the provisions of s. 8(2)(f)(vii) of the Assam Agrl. IT Act, 1939, as amended by the Assam Act XXIII of 1989 w.e.f. 28th Dec., 1989 (for short “the Assam Act”), unpaid cess under the Assam Taxation (on Specified Lands) Act, 1990 (for short the “Land Act”), is to be allowed as a deduction from the net agricultural income under the Assam Act ?

High Court Of Gauhati (Full Bench) Lankashi Tea And Seed Estates (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. CIT & Ors. Sections Assam AGRL. IT 2(a), Assam AGRL. IT 8(2)(e), Assam AGRL. IT 8(2)(f)(vii), 37(1), 43B Asst. Years 1991-92, 1992-93 P.G. Agarwal, A.H. Saikia & Ranjan Gogoi, JJ. Writ Petn. Nos. 2784 & 2786 of 1995 and 1456 …

Delhi H.C : The petitioners’ case as set out in the writ petition is that although no arrears on account of income-tax or wealth-tax dues were outstanding against them, yet the TRO at New Delhi had got the properties of the petitioners at Dehradun attached for recovery of amounts allegedly due from the petitioners

High Court Of Delhi Roop Chand vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 220, 226 T.S. Thakur & Shiv Narayan Dhingra, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 402 of 1989 25th May, 2006 Counsel Appeared K.R. Manjani & Ms. Geeta Luthra, for the Petitioners : R.D. Jolly, for the Respondents JUDGMENT T.S. thakur, J. : In these petitions …

Delhi H.C : The petitioner has assailed the correctness of an order dt. 5th Aug., 2005 as amended by a corrigendum dt. 17th Aug., 2005 passed by the respondent in terms of s. 127(2)

High Court Of Delhi Nitin Developers & Const. vs. CIT Section 127(2) T.S. Thakur & Shiv Narayan Dhingra, JJ. Writ Petn. No. 20459 of 2005 18th May, 2006 Counsel Appeared : Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, for the Petitioner : Sanjeev Sabharwal, for the Respondent ORDER By the court : In this petition for a …

Tag: 284 ITR