Follow Us:

Bombay High Court

CIT vs J. K. Investor (Bombay) Ltd. (Bombay High Court)

June 5, 2000 1737 Views 0 comment Print

The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is : Whether notional interest on interest-free deposit received by the assessee against letting of property could be taken into account in cases falling under section 23(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) In other words, whether notional interest would form part of actual rent received or receivable under section 23(1)(b) ?

Somaiya Orgeno Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT (1995) 216 ITR 291

December 3, 1993 862 Views 0 comment Print

Under the Ethyl Alcohol (Price Control) Amendment Order, 1971, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals and Mines and Metals, dated January 30, 1971, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 18G of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, the Central Government prescribed certain maximum ex-distillery prices of ethyl alcohol as set out therein.

CIT vs Tarachand Kalyanji (Bombay High Court)

February 9, 1993 762 Views 0 comment Print

The question whether the charge was voluntary or involuntary will have to be decided with reference to the facts relating to the creation of such charge. If the charge is created voluntarily, it remains so, whether it is created before the amendment or after the amendment.

Can assessee claim exemption U/s. 54 for acquisition of more than one house?

April 2, 1990 4377 Views 0 comment Print

The petitioner is in the service of the Bank of Baroda. He purchased a flat in Suvarnadeep Co-operative Housing Society Limited (for short “Surnadeep”), Santacruz, Bombay, on March 21, 1973, for a sum of Rs. 49,140 for the purpose of his residence. He was residing in that flat On October 24, 1979, he sold the flat for Rs. 1,25,000

Orkay Silk Mills Limited & others vs. M.S.Bindra & Others (Bombay High Court)

February 25, 1986 1858 Views 0 comment Print

1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the legality of the order dated June 1, 1985 passed by respondent No. 1. The petitioner No. 1 is a company carrying on business of manufacturing polyester filament yarn of the type known as Partially Oriented Yarn (“POY”)

Search Post by Date
April 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930