Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

320 ITR

Sec. 17(3), Section 17, Section 4

Delhi H.C : The assessee had applied for a job in the Voice of America which was a State owned broadcasting agency

Avijit Das / December 12, 2008

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra Section 4, 17(3)(iii) Asst. Year 2003-04, 2004-05 Badar Durrez Ahmed […]

Sec. 17(3), Section 17, Section 4

Delhi H.C : The AO had made an addition in respect of the amount of compensation and interest received by the assessee from the Government of the United States of America

Avijit Das / December 12, 2008

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra Section 4, 17(3)(iii) Asst. Year 2003-04, 2004-05 Badar Durrez Ahmed

Allahabad H.C : The assessee company is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of writing instruments under the brand name of ‘Rotomac’ and located at Kanpur

Avijit Das / December 2, 2008

High Court Of Allahabad Rotomac Globals (P) Ltd. vs. CIT Section 37(1) Asst. Year 2000-01, 2002-03 Devi Prasad Singh &

Section 147, Section 148

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, was validly served on the assessee ?

Avijit Das / September 9, 2008

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana SAT Narain vs. CIT Section 147, 148, Asst. Year 1994-95, 1995-96 Adarsh Kumar Goel

Delhi H.C : the assessee had explained the investment in the property by declaring it in the return of income before the date of search and the same had been accepted in the assessment made under s. 143(3)

Avijit Das / August 4, 2008

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Pramod Kumar Gupta Section 260A Block period 1st April, 1996 to 4th Oct., 2002

Sec. 44AB, Section 271, Section 271B

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that no penalty is imposable under s. 271B for non-compliance with the provisions of s. 44AB on the ground that the returns were filed belatedly neither under s. 139 nor on a notice under s. 142 of the Act ?

Avijit Das / July 8, 2008

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Apex Laboratories (P) Ltd. Section 44AB, 271B Asst. Year 1994-95 K. Raviraja Pandian &

Sec. 158BC, Section 127, Section 131, Section 158

Gujarat H.C : The petitioner had purchased an immovable property called ‘Rupam Talkies’ under two different sale deeds dt. 28th Sept., 1992

Avijit Das / June 26, 2008

High Court Of Gujarat Suvidha Association vs. L.R. Meena, Additional Director Of Income Tax (Investigation) & Ors. Section 132(1), 158BC,

Delhi H.C : There was a fluctuation in the rate of foreign exchange, the assessee suffered a loss and it claimed a deduction on account of the loss incurred

Avijit Das / April 23, 2008

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Goyal M.G. Gases (P) Ltd. Section 28(i) Asst. Year 1998-99 Madan B. Lokur &

Income Tax Case Laws

Karnataka H.C : The profit/loss derived by the assessee on the sale of equity shares held by the assessee in M/s MIC Auto Ancillaries Ltd. cannot be treated as a capital loss as held by the AO but should be treated as business loss of the assessee

Avijit Das / February 14, 2008

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & Anr. vs. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Asst. Year 1991-92 Deepak Verma & A.S. Bopanna,

Section 256, Section 47

Gujarat H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,85,93,546 holding that the amount in question represented capital gains and the said capital gains was exempt under s. 47(iv) of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / January 22, 2008

High Court Of Gujarat CIT vs. Shahibaug Enterprises (P) Ltd. Section 47(iv), 256(2) Asst. Year 1979-80 D.A. Mehta & Z.K.

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 5 6 7 Next →

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

Scroll to Top