Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Bombay High Court

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the gratuity liability determined on actuarial valuation for the period prior to 31st March ,1972 ?

Avijit Das / April 15, 1999

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Dawn Mills Co. Ltd. Sections 37(1) Dr. B.P. Saraf & D.G. Deshpande, JJ. IT […]

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in including excise duty paid on goods lying at the company’s depot at the end of the year in value of the closing stock of finished goods?

Avijit Das / November 25, 1998

High Court Of Bombay J.K. Helene Curtis Limited vs. CIT Sections 17(3), 40A(5) Dr. B.P. Saraf & Dr. Pratibha Upasani,

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the value of the assessee’s right of occupation as a tenant should be treated as a part of the cost of the flat even though this right has merged in the bigger estate at the time of the purchase of the remaining rights over the flat for the purpose of computing the surplus liable to capital gains tax?

Avijit Das / September 15, 1998

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Dr. D.A. Irani Section 2(42A) Asst. Year 1977-78 Dr. B.P. Saraf & A.Y. Sakhare,

Sec. 37(1), Section 37

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the liability to pay the entire amount of DM 1.40 millions did not arise on the execution of the agreement and that it arose only in the account period?

Avijit Das / February 3, 1998

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Kirloskar Tractors Ltd. Section 37(1) Asst. Year 1974-75, 1975-76 Dr. B.P. Saraf & Mrs.

Bombay H.C : the aircraft owned by the assessee falls under item E(1) of the Depreciation Table

Avijit Das / August 1, 1997

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Kirloskar Oil Engines Section 32(1) Asst. Year 1978-79, 1981-82 Dr. B.P. Saraf & Dr.

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the product manufactured by the assessee would not come within the ambit of the word “paint” in the list of articles of Entry 26 of Eleventh Schedule and consequently holding that the assessee-company was entitled to investment allowance ?

Avijit Das / July 9, 1997

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Hardcastle & Waud Mfg. Co. Ltd. Section 32A Asst. Year 1980-81 Dr. B.P. Saraf

Bombay H.C : The Appropriate Authority by notice dt. 11th Nov., 1994, called upon respondent No. 5 to furnish information/documents referred to therein on or before 21st Nov., 1994.

Avijit Das / April 2, 1997

High Court Of Bombay S. Krishnan vs. U.V. Shahadadpuri & Ors. Section 269UD, ART. 226 M.B. Shah, C.J. & F.I.

Sec. 271(1)(c ), Section 273, Section 273A

Bombay H.C : The petitioner to waive penalty as well as interest by holding that the petitioner has not made any satisfactory arrangement for the payment of unpaid amount.

Avijit Das / July 15, 1996

High Court Of Bombay Mohanlal V. Nakum vs. CIT & Anr. Sections 271(1)(c), 273A(1) Asst. Year 1985-86 M.B. Shah, C.J.

Sec. 269UD, Sec. 269UG, Sec. 269UH

Bombay H.C : This petition is filed by the purchaser challenging the compulsory purchase order passed by the Appropriate Authority on the ground that respondent No. 1 had not paid full amount of earnest money on the due date and even the short payment of Rs. 60,00,000 made by cheque was in the name of a wrong person.

Avijit Das / December 15, 1995

High Court Of Bombay Prima Realty vs. Union Of India & Ors. Sections 269UD, 269UG, 269UH M.B. Shah, C.J. &

Sec. 35B, Sec. 40(c), Section 35, Section 40

Bombay H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that expenses on duty and clearing charges, delivery charges, insurance and freight charges, aggregating to Rs. 63,769 were not eligible for weighted deduction under s. 35B ?

Avijit Das / December 14, 1995

High Court Of Bombay Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. vs. CIT Sections 35B, 40(c), 40A(5), RULE 3(c)(ii) Asst. Year 1977-78

Post pagination

← Previous 1 … 100 101 102 … 122 Next →

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

Scroll to Top