In favour of respondent

Sec. 260A, Sec. 27A, Section 260, Section 27

Kerala H.C : An important question as to the retrospective effect of s. 52A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) inserted by the Kerala Court Fees & Suits Valuation (Amendment) Act, 2003 providing for Court fee payable on memorandum of appeal filed before the High Court against the orders of the Tribunal, both under the IT Act and under the WT Act calls for determination in all these cases.

/

High Court Of Kerala CIT vs. A.M. Habeeb Sections 260A, WT 27A, Kerala Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1959,

Income Tax Case Laws

S.C : The recommended value is the higher of the intrinsic value or the market based value. Though rationally speaking, the recommended value should be the intrinsic value, it may be possible that the market based value at a given point of time is higher than the intrinsic value, which is indicative of a bullish phase/perception of the market and/or industry and/or the company. Therefore, to take into account this practical reality, I have suggested the higher of the two.

/

Supreme Court Of India Dr. Mrs. Renuka Datla vs. Solvay Pharmaceutical B V & Ors. S. Rajendra Babu, P. Vnkatarama

Income Tax Case Laws

S.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and correct interpretation of the provisions of the Bombay ST Act, 1959, as amended by Maharashtra Act No. 9 of 1989, dispensing with the profit motive’ from the concept of the ‘business’, was the Tribunal justified in holding that the respondent is not a ‘dealer qua its activities’ of publication and sale of books, booklets and allied publications including photos and stickers?

/

Supreme Court Of India Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs. Sai Publication Fund Sections Bom ST 2(5A), Bom ST 2(11), Bom

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security