320 ITR

Sec. 260A, Sec. 37(1)

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the CIT(A) restricting the disallowance of Rasigar Manram expenses to 20 per cent of the claim even though the expenses had not been established to be genuine with supporting vouchers or other forms of evidence ?

/

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. A. Vijayakant Section 37(1), 260A Asst. Year 2004-05 F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla & Mrs. R.

Section 250

Himachal Pradesh H.C : CIT(A) was justified in taking into account the fresh evidence produced by the assessee without confronting it to the AO in disregard to the provisions of sub-r. (3) of r. 46A of IT Rules, 1962 wherein it has specifically been provided that CIT(A) could not accept such evidence unless the AO has been given reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence so produced

/

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh CIT vs. Shree Kangra Steel (P) Ltd. Section 250(4), IT Rule 46A Asst. Year 1996-97

Sec. 144B, Sec. 158BB, Section 144

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal was correct in law in holding that in a block assessment there is no scope of an assessment based on best judgment of an AO and that the ratio of the apex Court’s judgment in the case of CST vs. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali will not apply to it ?

/

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. R.M.L. Mehrotra Section 144B, 158BB Block period 1st April, 1986 to 25th Sept., 1996

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security