Follow Us:

Judiciary

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

February 21, 1991 7801 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 1426 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 4446 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 1936 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 3835 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 27215 Views 2 comments 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 1948 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 1135 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.

CIT vs M.K. Brothers (Gujarat High Court), (1987) 163 ITR 249

October 25, 1985 7384 Views 0 comment Print

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.

Unabsorbed carried forward losses cannot be given preference over current depreciation

August 14, 1985 3457 Views 0 comment Print

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.

Search Post by Date
July 2026
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031