Jammu And Kashmir High Court

Section 16, Wealth Tax Act

Jammu & Kashmir H.C : Whether, in view of the fact that tax had been properly calculated on a separate calculation sheet duly signed by the WTO on the same date on which the order computing the taxable wealth has been signed by him, the Tribunal is right in holding that the ratio of the decision given by the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of S. Mubarik Shah Naqshbandi 1977 CTR (J&K) 180 : (1977) 110 ITR 217 (J&K) : TC 11R.317 applies to this case ?

/

High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir CIT vs. Abdul Gani Bhat Sections WT 16(3), WT 23(1)(d), WT 24 Dr. B.P.

Section 16, Section 23, Wealth Tax Act

Jammu & Kashmir H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in considering in the course of and for the purpose of disposing of an appeal with regard to levy of penalty for default under s. 18(1)(a) of the WT Act, 1957, a challenge to the validity of the assessment order which was in fact final and conclusive ?

/

High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs. Jawahar Lal Mehra Sections WT 16(3), WT 23(1)(d), WT

Section 80HH, Section 80J

Jammu & Kashmir H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was right in contending that the CIT(A) should have treated the requirements to have been met when certificates in Form Nos. 10C and 10D had been filed before him instead of the same having been filed along with the return as required in sub-s. (5) of s. 80HH of the Act ?

/

High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir CIT vs. Trehan Enterprises Sections 80HH, 80J, 251(1)(a) Asst. year 1976-77 T.S. Doabia &

Sec. 251(1)(a), Section 251, Section 80HH, Section 80J

Jammu & Kashmir H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was right in contending that the CIT(A) should have treated the requirements to have been met when certificates in Form Nos. 10C and 10D had been filed before him instead of the same having been filed along with the return as required in sub-s. (5) of s. 80HH of the Act ?

/

High Court Of Jammu & Kashmir CIT vs. Trehan Enterprises Sections 80HH, 80J, 251(1)(a) Asst. year 1976-77 T.S. Doabia &

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security