Advanced Search Results

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Borosil Glass Works Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(Mum.)361

only one ground raised in this appeal It relates to interpretation of the provisions of Section 115J(2) of the IT Act, 1961. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 3. For the asst. yr. 1988-89,

Choice Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dy. Cit

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)103ITD75(Coch.)

net loss and hence, he proposed to rectify the intimation by invoking the provisions of Section 154 of the IT Act.After hearing the assessee, the assessing officer worked out the loss at Rs. 6,89,14,911/- as per his order dated

Additional Commissioner of Vs. Nestle India Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2005)94TTJ(Delhi)53

1. Appeal in ITA No. 4545/Del/2000 is the appeal filed by the Revenue on 20th Nov., 2000, against the order of the CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi, dt.31st Aug., 2000, in the case of the assessee in … assessee and the payments made by the assessee-company were not hit by the provisions of Section 40A{2) of the IT Act, 1961. The powers under Section 92 could be applied-only if the Department had evidence or material to the

Siemens Information System Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income T ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Companies Act, 1956; Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 2(45), 4, 5, 10A, 10A(1), 10B, 80B(5), 143(1), 147 and 148; Finance Act, 2000

Reported in : 2007(6)BomCR236; (2007)211CTR(Bom)10; [2007]293ITR548(Bom)

furnished by the respondent No. 1 had quoted the provisions of Section 10A as amended by the Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. the asst. yr. 2001-02 and as such could not have been made applicable for the asst. yr. … losses of non 10A units against income of 10A units and thereafter, claim deduction under Section 10A of the IT Act on the balance amount. This interpretation is evident from the wording in the section allowing deduction under Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Fertilizer Traders [Alongwith

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)83TTJ(All.)473

CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of the order dt. 4th Oct., 2000 that had been passed earlier by the Dy. CIT, Central Circle, Gorakhpur under Section 154 r/w Section 158BC, … are directed against different orders of the CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dt. 14th Aug., 2002 passed under Section 158BC/154 of the IT Act, 1961.3. In both the cases of the assessees, undisclosed income was computed and thereafter it was bifurcated in

Varsha Plastics (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)99TTJ(Mum.)487

the GIR number and the ex-director of the company--Shri R.P. Goel, appeared before the AO on 28th Feb., 2000, and confirmed the loan transaction. (ii) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,50,000 from … under : (i) The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,50,000 under Section 68 of the IT Act as the income of the appellant on account of borrowings made from M/s Fraternity Electronics Ltd. for which

Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. Additional Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Land Acquisition

Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Mum.)53

Thalanga Copper Mines (P) Ltd. Monte Cello Corporation NV subsequently sold Monte Cello BV to Sterlite. In July, 2000, Sterlite's telecommunications cables and optical fibre business was demerged into a new company, Sterlite Optical Technologies Ltd. ("SOTL").66. … of the Court. The expression "sufficient cause or reason" as provided in Sub-section (5) of Section 253 of the IT Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act and the CPC. Such expression has also been used … ____________ Less: Depreciation as per the Companies Act as per Schedule VI 89,40,761 ____________ 30% of the book profit as above 1,01,03,737 ____________ Computation of

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Vindhya Telelinks Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2007)107TTJJab149

IT Appeal No. 112 which is stated to be pending.5. The notice under Section 148 dt. 23rd Oct., 2000 was issued for the reasons that: (1) Original assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 23rd Nov., 1994 … CIT(A), Jabalpur which was disposed of by him on 7th Feb., 1995. Subsequently order under Section 263 of the IT Act was passed on 25th March, 1998 by the CIT, Jabalpur. Against this order, the Tribunal accepted the appeal

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. U.P. Forest Corporation

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Lucknow

Subject : Direct Taxation

and 1229/All/1989 for the asst. yrs. 1985-86 and 1986-87 respectively, the Tribunal issued notice under Section 254(2) of the IT Act dt. 30th Aug., 2000 requiring the assessee, M/s. U.P. Forest Corporation, Lucknow and the Revenue to state their … issue notice is inherent in view of several decisions including Mrs. K.TM.S. Umma v. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 890 (Mad), Sidhramappa Andannappa Manvi v. CIT (1952) 21 ITR 333 (Bom), CIT v. Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. (1980)

Parkar Securities Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2006)102TTJ(Ahd.)235

an appeal filed by the assessee and it is directed against the order of CIT(A), dt. 19th Sept., 2000 for asst. yr. 1997-98.2. Grounds of appeal attached with Form No. 36 are lengthy and narrative. However, at … the assessees. decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The question that arose was under Section 43(5) of the IT Act. The Bench found that the transaction in question could not be held to be a speculative transaction and, … 441, Perosha Gursetji Parakh v. Manekji Dossabhai Watcha (1898) ILR 22 Bom 899 and Sassoon v. Tokersey Jadhawjee (1904) ILR 28 Bom 616]. What is