Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Judiciary

CIT Vs. Pandavapura Sahakara Sakkare Kharkane Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 690 

September 11, 1991 975 Views 0 comment Print

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,08,644 made in the assessment for the assessment year 1980-81, being the amount transferred to the ‘molasses storage fund’ from the sale proceeds of the molasses ?

Depreciation can be allowed only if Assessee claimed & Furnished details in ROI

June 25, 1991 3767 Views 0 comment Print

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that two courses were open to the assessee, one being to claim depreciation and the other being forgo the depreciation and any course which is beneficial to the assessee could be adopted and the incidence of tax can be legitimately reduced

A.L.A. Firm v. CIT (Supreme Court) (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC)

February 21, 1991 6850 Views 0 comment Print

Section 147(b)-Scope of-Assessment year 1961-62-Reassessment-Interpretation and meaning of the word information-Material coming to the notice of the Income Tax Officer subsequent to original assessment-Meaning of the word Escape. Dissolution of Firm-Valuation of closing stoc- Principles-In continuing business closing stock to be valued at cost or market price which ever is lower-Where business is discontinued, the closing stock to be valued at market price.

CIT vs. Indramani Devi Singhania (Allahabad High Court)

January 10, 1991 1132 Views 0 comment Print

It is evident from a reading of these two clauses that clause (iii) which permitted any amount paid by way of interest on a mortgage or other capital charge was deleted and clause (iv) was amended in such a manner as to make only that annual charge which is not voluntary or which does not amount to a capital charge alone deductible.

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

April 2, 1990 4029 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

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sothia Mining and Manufacturing Corporation Ltd., (186 ITR 182)

March 13, 1989 1576 Views 0 comment Print

The decision in this case arose out of an order passed by the Tribunal which had condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the respondent. The Tribunal had condoned the delay on the ground that there was a decision of the Supreme Court on the controversy raised and because of the said decision the Assessee had found that it had good reason to prefer an appeal

Allowability of retrospective amendment which impairs existing right or obligation

February 14, 1989 3556 Views 0 comment Print

A retrospective operation is not to be given to a statute, so as the impair existing right or obligation otherwise than as regards matter of procedure unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment.

Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC)

February 19, 1987 24338 Views 0 comment Print

An appeal by the State. against a decision enhancing compensation in respect of acquisition of lands for a public purpose, raising important questions as regards principles of valuation, was dismissed by the High Court as time barred, being four days beyond time, by rejecting an application for condonation of dalay. The State appealed to this Court by special leave.Allowing the appeal,

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

February 25, 1986 1462 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”)

Imposition of penalty solely on the basis of surrender not sustainable

January 31, 1986 907 Views 0 comment Print

Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. M. George & Bros. [1986] 160 ITR 511 held that where the assessee for one reason or the other agrees or surrenders certain amounts for assessment, the imposition of penalty solely on the basis of the surrender will not be well-founded.

Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031