Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

344 ITR

Punjab & Haryana H.C : While not accepting claim under section 80-I although the assessee fulfilled all the requisite conditions of being an industrial undertaking

Avijit Das / August 18, 2010

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Liberty Group Marketing Division vs. CIT Assessment Years : 1986-87 And 1987-88 Section : […]

Section 251, Section 68

Karnataka H.C : The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has no jurisdiction to consider the genuineness of the cash credit in the name of Raj Naik

Avijit Das / August 10, 2010

High Court Of Karnataka CIT (Central) vs. K.S. Dattatreya Section : 68, 251 N. Kumar And H.S. Kempanna, JJ. ITRC

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Calcutta H.C : Expenditure on purchase of gift articles utilized for promotion and growth of business are allowable under section 37(1)

Avijit Das / July 27, 2010

High Court Of Calcutta Duncans Tea Ltd. vs. CIT Section : 37(1) Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta And Kanchan Chakraborty, JJ. IT

Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 271

Karnataka H.C : Affirming the order of penalty passed by the Assessing Authority when the assessment on the undisclosed income is set aside by the Appellate Tribunal

Avijit Das / July 26, 2010

High Court Of Karnataka J. Sumermal (HUF) vs. ACIT, Circle V(1), Bangalore Assessment Year : 1998-99 Section : 271(1)(C) N.

Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 271

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Where difference in violation of stock was only because of lower gross profit rate which was also corrected by assessee by revised return disclosing higher gross profit rate, there was no intentional concealment on part of assessee and, therefore, levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified

Avijit Das / July 23, 2010

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Sadhu Singh and Sons Assessment Year : 1982-83 Section : 271(1)(c) Adarsh

Delhi H.C : No additions on aforesaid two reasons could be made at all, there was no basis for issuance of a notice under section 148 insofar as those two reasons were concerned

Avijit Das / July 22, 2010

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Eicher Ltd. Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Section : 147 A.K. Sikri And Reva Khetrapal,

Karnataka H.C : wages, appraisal charges, repairs and renewals charges, received by the assessee cannot be reduced by 90 per cent from the profits and gains of business as contemplated under Explanation (baa) read with section 80HHC(3)(c) of the Act for the purpose of granting deduction under section 80HHC(1) of the Act where the assessee had exported goods manufactured/processed/traded by it in India

Avijit Das / July 21, 2010

High Court Of Karnataka CIT, Bangalore vs. Davanam Jewellers Assessment Years : 1993-94 To 1995-96 Section : 80HHC N. Kumar

Madras H.C : The gifts received on assessee’s birthday as Capital Receipt and having no nexus with his profession as vocation of religious practice is valid

Avijit Das / July 21, 2010

High Court Of Madras CIT, Tamil Nadu-VII vs. Gopala Naicker Bangaru Assessment Year : 2004-05 Section : 4 D. Murugesan

Karnataka H.C : Sub-section (2) of section 159BFA of the Act has been framed in such a manner that the violation cannot be identified and consequently, no offence for imposition of penalty can be made out and therefore, penalty cannot be levied

Avijit Das / July 21, 2010

High Court Of Karnataka CIT vs. Nemichand Block Assessment Period : 1988-89 To 1997-98 Section : 158BFA N. Kumar And

Karnataka H.C : The deduction on account of the discrepancy in the vehicles towards TDS amounts is justified that the said amounts are actually paid in the subsequent years

Avijit Das / July 19, 2010

High Court Of Karnataka Smt. J. Rama vs. CIT, Bangalore Assessment Year : 2005-06 Section : 194C N. Kumar And

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 6 7 8 Next →

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

Scroll to Top