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
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
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.
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,
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”)
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.
CIT Vs. M.K. Brothers (163 ITR 249) sales-tax authorities had carried on certain investigations which revealed that a racket of issuing bogus vouchers by the said parties was prevailing in the market. The Income-tax Officer also learnt from local inquiries that the parties were not available at the addresses given.
CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration (P) Ltd. (Supreme Court) Unabsorbed carried forward losses and current depreciation -Deduction of – Unabsorbed carried forward losses cannot be given preference over current depreciation While computing the total income of an assessee in an assessment year.
The High Court held that there was nothing illegal in the issuance of the search warrant, the consequent search, the seizure during the search and taking over of the documents by the Income Tax Department under Section 132-A and dismissed the petition.
ASSETS RECEIVED UNDER GIFT – Where A acquired agricultural lands in 1961, and after converting them into non-agricultural use in 1962 gifted the lands to B in 1966, and later B sold them, the cost of acquisition under section 49(1)(ii) would be the amount originally paid by A, and not the value on the date of conversion or on the date of gift
