Tag: In favour of Assessee

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in pholding the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of both the years under reference ?

High Court Of Allahabad Pandit Govind Prasad Mishra vs. CIT Sections 271(1)(c), 274 Asst. Year 1971-72, 1972-73 S.L. Saraf & Ikram-Ul-Bari, JJ. IT Ref. No. 289 of 1981 24th February, 1999 Counsel Appeared Vikram Gulati, for the Assessee : Shambhu Chopra, for the r Commissioner JUDGMENT S.L. SARAF, J. : At the instance of the assessee, …

Gujarat H.C : The petitioner-assessee challenges the notice under s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961, dt. 27th June, 1993, for reopening of the assessment for the asst. yr. 1987-88.

High Court Of Gujarat Avani Corporation vs. ITO Sections 147, 148, Art. 226 Asst. Year 1987-88 Rajesh Balia & A.R. Dave, JJ. Special Civil Appln. No. 9855 of 1993 8th April, 1999 Counsel Appeared S.N. Soparkar, for the Petitioner : R.P. Bhatt, for the Respondent ORDER By the court : The petitioner-assessee challenges the notice under …

Punjab & Haryana H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing carry forward of depreciation of asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1978-79, which could not be set off against the income of the partners of the assessee’s firm in the hands of the firm for the purposes of set off against its income in the subsequent years ?

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana CIT vs. Deepak Industries Section 32(2) Asst. Year 1978-79, 1979-80 Ashok Bhan & N.K. Agrawal, JJ. IT Ref. Nos. 19 & 20 of 1986 11th August, 1997 Counsel AppearedB.S. Gupta with Sanjay Bansal, for the Appellant : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT ASHOK BHAN, J. : This order shall dispose …

Bombay H.C : Whether the CIT(A) was right in directing the ITO to exclude the conveyance expenses and telephone expenses from computation of disallowance under r. 6D of the IT Rules.

High Court Of Bombay CIT vs. Acme Mfg. Co. Ltd. Section 37(3) S.H. Kapadia & R.M.S. Khandeparkar, JJ. IT Appeal No. 343 of 2000 19th June, 2000 Counsel Appeared R.V. Desai with J.P. Deodhar, for the Appellant : P.N. Modi i/b. Rustomji & Ginwala, for the Respondent JUDGMENT BY THE COURT : The short point which …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for the purpose of determining the income under the head ‘Capital gains’ the assessee was entitled to claim the previous year ending 25th Dec., 1975, under the provisions of s. 3(1) (c) ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Ramesh Khanna Section 3(1)(b) Asst. Year 1976-77 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. No. 129 of 1991 4th January, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sanjiv Khanna with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue : None, for the Assessee JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. : At the instance of the Revenue, the …

S.C : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in having upheld in entirety the disallowance of the assessee’s claim of a sum of Rs. 8,00,063 on account of demurrage and wharfage recovered from the assessee by the North Western Railways, merely because a claim against the contractor was pending for arbitration ?

Supreme Court Of India Punjab Small Industries Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT Section 256(2) B.N. Kirpal, U.C. Banerjee & Brijesh Kumar, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 7353 of 2000, arising out of SLP(C) No. 6378 of 1999 12th December, 2000 ORDER BY THE COURT : Special leave granted. 2. After hearing the counsel for the parties, in our …

S.C : An agreement to sell was entered into on 6th May, 1994, by respondent No. 3 with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of property bearing municipal No. C-590, Defence Colony, New Delhi, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 80 lacs.

Supreme Court Of India Appropriate Authority & Anr. vs. R.C. Chawla & Ors. Sections 269UC, 269UD S. Rajendra Babu & K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 6049 of 1998 10th May, 2001 Counsel Appeared Shail Kumar Dwivedi, for the Appellants : Geetanjali Mohan, Hari Shankar & Navin Chawla, for the Respondents JUDGMENT RAJENDRA BABU, J. : …

Delhi H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 43,403 did not constitute entertainment expenditure within the meaning of s. 37(2B) and was therefore, not liable to be disallowed ?

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Modern Bakeries India Limited Sections 37(2B), 80J, RULE 19A(3) Asst. Year 1973-74 Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J. IT Ref. Nos. 283 & 284 of 1981 11th January, 2001 Counsel Appeared Sanjiv Khanna with Ajay Jha, for the Revenue : None, for the Respondent JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. : …

S.C : The order under challenge in these appeals by the Revenue followed the earlier judgment of the same High Court in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 113 CTR (Guj) 75 : (1993) 204 ITR 866 (Guj).

Supreme Court Of India Union Of India vs. Satish Panalal Shah Sections 261, 269UC S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ. Civil Appeal Nos. 1157 of 1998, 1161 to 1167 of 1998 & 4154 of 1999 6th December, 2000 Counsel Appeared T.L.V. Iyer with Mrs. Laxmi Iyengar, Ajay Sharma, S.K. Dwivedi & Ms. Sushma …
Malcare WordPress Security