Tag: 296 ITR

Madhya Pradesh H.C : the deduction as per the proviso to s. 80HHC has to be calculated independently without setting off the same against the loss worked out as per cls. (a), (b) and (c) of sub-s. (3) of s. 80HHC relying on their own earlier order dt. 26th Feb., 1999, in ITA Nos. 510 and 1026/Ind/1997 in the case of Alphine Solvex Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT even though the same was not accepted by the Department and against which appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act before the MP High Court is still pending for decision

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CIT vs. Chemifine Section 80HHC, 260A A.M. Sapre & Ashok Kumar Tiwari, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 34 & 35 of 2000 20th February, 2008 Counsel Appeared : R.L. Jain with Miss Vibha Mandlik for the Appellant : G M. Chaphekar with D. S. Kale, for the Respondent JUDGMENT By the court …

Madhya Pradesh H.C : Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the addition made by the AO on account of variation in stock found in course of search and seizure operation and further the opinion that no surcharge was leviable in respect of search conducted during financial year 2001-02 even when the levy of surcharge has been provided by Part I of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 2000 (10 of 2000) [first proviso to s. 2(3) of the Act 10 of 2000] ?

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh CIT vs. Narmada Ginning & Pressing Factory Block period 1st April, 1995 to 30th Nov., 2001 Section 113, proviso, 158BC, 260A A.K. Patnaik, C.J. & Ajit Singh, J. MAIT No. 112 of 2006 9th August, 2007 Counsel Appeared Rohit Arya with Sanjeev Tuli, for the Petitioner : Sumit Nema, for the …

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the impugned cash credit of Rs. 7 lacs in respect of loans from Shri Y.J. Choksi Group and disallowance of interest of Rs. 3,96,964 thereon Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal ought to have deleted the impugned additions by way of cash credit and disallowance of interest in view of gross violation of the principles of natural justice and directions given by the CIT(A) in his order dt. 30th March, 2001 ?

High Court Of Bombay Kalpesh K. Shah vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 68 Asst. Year 1997-98 F.I. Rebello & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 483 of 2007 31st July, 2007 Counsel Appeared : S.N. Vidatia i/b Amarendra Mishra, for the Appellant : A.D. Kango, for the Respondent JUDGMENT J.P. Devadhar, J. : Heard. …

S.C : he CCE(A) vide order dt. 28th Dec., 1998 asked the appellant to deposit the entire amount of duty and penalty within four weeks from the date of the order. Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, came out with scheme known as “Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998” (for short, ‘KVSS’). The said scheme provided for settling the tax arrear by paying 50 per cent of the disputed tax arrear

Supreme Court Of India Swan Mills Ltd. vs. Union Of India & Ors. Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, s. 95(i)(c) Dr. Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 3281 of 2007 26th July, 2007 JUDGMENT Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. : Leave granted. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division …

Madras H.C : the sum of Rs. 34.25 lakhs was not received by the appellant, is justified in holding that the said sum represents the appellant’s income

High Court Of Madras Pyramid Films International vs. DCIT Section 158B(b), 158BB Block period 1st April, 1987 to 17th March, 1997 K. Raviraja Pandian & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 47 of 2004 17th July, 2007 Counsel Appeared : V. Ramachandran for Mrs. Anitha Sumanth, for the Appellant : Mrs. Pushya Sitaraman, for …

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs being the unexplained credit is not leviable ?

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. M. Ravindran Section 260A Asst. Year 2000-01 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) No. 1043 of 2007 12th July, 2007 Counsel Appeared : N. Muralikumaran, for the Appellant JUDGMENT P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. : This appeal is filed under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 …

Madras H.C : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the AO to invoke specific rr. 3, 4 and 5 of Sch. III of the WT Act when the transaction of lease is between sister-concerns, without giving the AO the option of applying rr. 8 and 20, even if they are found to be relevant ?

High Court Of Madras Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. VGP Housing (P) Ltd. Section WT Sch. III, r. 3, WT Sch. III, 4, WT Sch. III, 5, WT Sch. III, 8, WT Sch. III, 20 Asst. Year 1985-86, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 P.D. Dinakaran & P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, JJ. Tax Case (Appeal) Nos. 29 to 32 of …
Malcare WordPress Security