Advanced Search Results

Tulsidas Vs. Patel (P) Ltd. V. Wealth Tax Officer

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (1998)61TTJ(Mumbai)282

Advocate for Appellant : Smt. Geeta Subramanian, for the Assessee Prakash Jotwani, for the Revenue

ORDERT.V. Rajagopala Rao, P.This is an appeal filed by the assessee and it relates to assessment year 1990-91. The assessee is a private limited company. The relevant valuation date was 31-3-1990. It filed wealth-tax return on...

Elcid Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Ito

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)819

Advocate for Appellant : Prakash Jotwani, for the Assessee Surjit Singh, for the Revenue.

ORDERS.R. Chavhan, J.M.:This stay application has been filed by the petitioner-assessee-appellant in respect of ITA Nos. 1745 to 1747/M/2003 for assessment years 1994-95 to 1996-97.2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have...

Alpha Associates Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2000)66TTJ(Mumbai)758

Advocate for Appellant : Shoba Jagtiani & Prakash Jotwani, for the Assessee Waseem Arshad, for the Revenue

ORDERR. P. Tolani, JMThis is assessee's appeal challenging levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) at Rs. 1.30 crores imposed by Commissioner (Appeals) at twice the amount of tax sought to be evaded. The penalty was levied...

Sanjay Narang Vs. Dit

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)89TTJ(Mumbai)19

Advocate for Appellant : Prakash Jotwani, for the Appellant D.R. Sindhal, for the Respondent

ORDERG.C. Gupta, J.M.:These two appeals by the assessee for the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 are directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Since identical issue is involved in these appeals, these are being disposed...

B.R. Herman and Mohatta (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioner

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)341

Advocate for Appellant : Prakash Jotwani & Ms. Beena Pillai, for the assessee P.R. Sethi, for the revenue.

ORDERS.C. Tiwari, A.M.As there are certain common and inter-related issues involved in these four appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue, they were argued together by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee and the...

Amersey Damodar Vs. Dy. Cit

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2004)91TTJ(Mumbai)335

Advocate for Appellant : Prakash Jotwani, for the Assessee Prashant Bhushan, for the Revenue.

ORDERS.V. Mehrotra, A.M.:This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-V, Mumbai, dated 20-11-1996, and pertains to the assessment year 1990-91.2. The effective ground of appeal raised in the present appeal...

Saumil R. Kadakia Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2007)109TTJ(Mum.)26

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and is directed against the order dt. 27th March, 2003 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of assessment under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961,...

S.P. Goyal Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (2002)82ITD85(Mum.)

1. This appeal has been directed against the order of the CIT(A), Central-IV, dt. 5th July, 1999 for the asst. yr. 1993-94. The only ground of appeal is regarding the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs made...

Smt. Phool O. Navani Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (1991)36ITD558(Mum.)

1. These appeals are directed against the order of the DC(A) for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86.2. The first common ground is in regard to the disallowance of interest paid to M/s. P.R. Enterprises for...

Gopichand P. Godhwani Vs. Gift Tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

1. The appeal is by the individual-assessee. The assessee has agitated against the authorities adopting the market value determined by the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) and substituting the same for the consideration received on transfer of...