Tag: 325 ITR

S.C : Whether the Tribunal has not erred in law on facts in holding that the amount of Rs. 8,50,000 received by the assessee was not taxable as revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee ?

Supreme Court Of India CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. Section 4 Asst. Year 1974-75 D.K. Jain & C.K. Prasad, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 3702 of 2003 9th July, 2010 Counsel appeared : R.P. Bhatt with H.R. Rao & B.V. Balaram Das, for the Appellant : Bhargava V. Desai, Rahul Gupta & Nikhil Sharma, for the Respondent …
Read More...

Calcutta H.C : Section. 3(1)(f) of the IT Act is applicable on the AOP born out of joint-venture agreement instead of right section i.e. s. 3(1)(b) of the IT Act 1961 ? 2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law for not passing any order on cross-objection on the points of initiation of proceedings under s. 147/148 of the IT Act when it is necessary to pass a speaking order giving judgment on all points raised by the assessee whereby the liabilities of tax on the assessee is casted by virtue of the said proceeding under s. 148

High Court Of Calcutta Pradeep Trust vs. CIT Section 3(1)(b), 3(1)(f), 147, 148 Asst. Year 1982-83, 1983-84 Bhaskar Bhattacharya & Prasenjit Mandal, JJ. IT Appeal Nos. 15 & 16 of 2002 14th June, 2010 Counsel Appeared : J.P. Khaitan, P. Sanchiti & S. Bhowmik, for the Appellant : Bhowmik, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. …
Read More...

Bombay H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was right in holding that cls. (a), (b) and (c) of s. 94(7) of the IT Act, 1961, are to be satisfied independently or cumulatively

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Smt. Alka Bhosle Section 94(7) Asst. Year 2004-05 Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 2656 of 2009 9th June, 2010 Counsel appeared : D.K. Kamwal, for the Appellant : Atul K. Jasani with P.C. Tripathi, for the Respondent JUDGMENT DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. : The following …
Read More...

Madras H.C : the petitioner challenging the order of the respondent, the Dy. CIT relating to the assessee company’s objection for reopening of assessment under s. 147

High Court Of Madras Mavis Satcom Ltd. vs. DCIT Section 147,  proviso, 148, Art. 226 Asst. Year 2003-04, 2004-05 P. Jyothimani, J. Writ Petn. Nos. 27357 & 27358 of 2009 and 810 & 811 of 2010 7th June, 2010 Counsel appeared : V. Ramachandran for Dr. (Mrs.) Anitha Sumanth, for the Petitioner : K. Ramasamy, for …
Read More...

Madras H.C : the respondent had filed false returns of income

High Court Of Madras Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. N.K. Mohamed Ali Section 276C, 277, IPC 193, IPC 196, IPC 420, CRPC 245(2) Asst. Year 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 C.T. Selvam, J. Criminal O.P. Nos. 32954 to 32956 of 2005 & Misc. Petn. Nos. 9303 to 9305 of 2005 30th April, 2010 Counsel appeared : K. …
Read More...

Delhi H.C : the assessee in his original return of income filed on 30th Nov., 1998 had shown a long-term capital gain of Rs. 40,953. The said return was processed under s. 143(1

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd. Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 1998-99 Badar Durrez Ahmed & V.K. Jain, JJ. IT Appeal No. 1056 of 2009 27th April, 2010 Counsel appeared : Sanjeev Sabharwal, for the Appellant : Ajay Vohra with Ms. Kavita Jha and Sriram Krishna, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BADAR DURREZ …
Read More...

Allahabad H.C : the notices under s. 158BD of the IT Act, 1961

High Court Of Allahabad Superhouse Overseas Ltd. vs. DCIT Rajes Kumar & Pankaj Mithal, JJ. Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 767 of 2001 27th April, 2010 Counsel appeared : Ashish Bansal, for the Petitioners : Shambhu Chopra, for the Respondent JUDGMENT Rajes Kumar, J. : By means of the present writ petitions, the petitioners (referred to …
Read More...
Malcare WordPress Security