Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

329 ITR

Section 5, Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 145, Section 69

Delhi H.C : Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the penalty of Rs. 36,07,220 imposed by the AO under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / November 19, 2010

High Court Of Delhi Devsons (P) Ltd. vs. CIT & ORS. Section 5, 69, 145, 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 1995-96 A.K. […]

Section 43B, Sec. 115JB

Kerala H.C : The assessing authority invoked the legal fiction under s. 115JB of the IT Act, which enables the Revenue to arrive at fictitious conclusion regarding the total income of the assessee and assess the tax on such total income

Avijit Das / November 12, 2010

High Court Of Kerala Kerala State Electricity Board vs. DCIT Section 43B, 115JB Asst. Year 2002-03 to 2005-06 J. Chelameswar,

Section 147, Section 148

Delhi H.C : the reasons recorded for initiation of proceedings under s. 147(2) do not disclose the basis

Avijit Das / October 18, 2010

High Court Of Delhi Sarthak Securities Co. (P) Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer Section 147, 148 Asst. Year 2003-04 Dipak

Sec. 271(1)(c )

Delhi H.C : Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 20,22,944, imposed by the AO under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act ?

Avijit Das / September 13, 2010

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd. Section 271(1)(c) Asst. Year 2001-02 Dipak Misra, C.J., & Manmohan, J.

Sec. 5(2), Sec. 201(1), Sec. 201(1A), Sec. 9(1)(i), Section 195, Section 201

Bombay H.C : HEL is an Indian company in which shares were acquired by the Hutchison Group of com arrangement of holding and subsidiary companies

Avijit Das / September 8, 2010

High Court Of Bombay Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. Union Of India & Anr. Section 5(2), 9(1)(i), 195, 201(1), 201(1A)

Section 254, Sec. 260A, Section 36, Section 37

Madras H.C : No legal ground was taken on the validity of the reopening of the assessment

Avijit Das / September 6, 2010

High Court Of Madras Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Ors. Section 254, 260A, Act, 1922,

Delhi H.C : The expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of design and drawing fees as revenue expenditure instead of capital expenditure

Avijit Das / September 6, 2010

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Munjal Showa Ltd. Section 37(1) Asst. Year 1994-95 Dipak Misra, C.J. & Manmohan, J.

Section 28, Section 36, Section 69

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law by not allowing the deduction of Rs. 3,50,000 under s. 28 as business loss or under s. 36 as bad debt against the said amount added as income under s. 69 which amount was neither received back nor goods against that amount were received by the appellant

Avijit Das / August 25, 2010

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Satish Kumar vs. CIT Section 28, 36, 69 Asst. Year 1990-91 Adarsh Kumar Goel

Income Tax Case Laws, Section 32A

Gauhati H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and correct in law in holding that the adjustment of Rs. 27,94,275 made by the AO declining the claim of investment allowance is not in order ?

Avijit Das / August 6, 2010

High Court Of Gauhati CIT vs. Nagaland Roller Flour Mills Ltd. Section 32A(3), 32A(4) Asst. Year 1990-91 Ranjan Gogoi &

Sec. 28(i), Sec. 37(1), Section 263, Section 68, Section 69

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Assumption of jurisdiction under s. 263 by the CIT without giving a specific finding as to whether the amount of Rs. 48 lacs was assessable under s. 68 or 69 is unjustified, particularly when s. 68 had no application

Avijit Das / August 6, 2010

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Jagdish Chand Gupta Section 28(i), 37(1), Expln., 68, 69, 263 Asst. Year

Post pagination

1 2 … 7 Next →

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

Scroll to Top