Finance Act 2003 Section 166 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: finance act 2003 section 166 Court: allahabad Year: 2004 Page 1 of about 382 results (0.284 seconds)S.M.i. Kazim Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-15-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ESC297; (2005)2UPLBEC1362
awarded but on account of circular of the ministry of finance treated the advice of the vigilance commission as binding and in public interest land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore no mandamus 1999 which was replaced by the central vigilance commission act 2003 it was constituted to enquire or cause enquiries to be ble apex court while considering the expression may used in section 4 4 of the u p disciplinary proceeding administrative tribunal
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Income-tax Vs. Smt. Shashi Aggarwal and ors.
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-12-2004
Reported in : (2006)201CTR(All)48; [2005]272ITR36(All)
rate purposes in view of the amendment made by the finance act 1973 the income tax officer initiated penalty proceeding under learned counsel for the revenue submitted that by the finance act 1973 agricultural income was to be disclosed in the return the act was attracted according to him the explanation to section 271 1 c of the act was applicable as in
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMadanlal Kishorilal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-13-2004
Reported in : (2005)197CTR(All)144; [2005]277ITR209(All)
may be mentioned here that by section 40 of the finance act 1964 the word deliberately occurring in clause c of the penalty proceedings under section 271 1 c of the act are penal in nature and the burden is on the of the above information initiated proceeding against the applicant under section 147 1 read with section 148 for the asst yr
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTVidya Shanker Dixit Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-17-2004
Reported in : (2006)200CTR(All)196; [2005]277ITR285(All)
may be mentioned here that by section 40 of the finance act 1964 the word deliberately occurring in clause c of considered the effect of the explanation added by the finance act of 1964 17 in the case of kishan singh chand act 1964 the word deliberately occurring in clause c of section 271 1 of the act has been omitted and the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Income-tax Vs. Kanpur Textiles Ltd.
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-31-2004
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(All)293; [2005]276ITR140(All)
insertion of section 40a 7 in the act by the finance act 1975 with effect from april 1 1973 as follows may permit a provision for contingent liabilities the income tax act 1961 does not for under section 36 v the only under an irrevocable trust this argument is plainly incorrect because section 36 deals with expenditure deductible from out of the taxable the case of smt padmavati jaikrishna v addl cit 1987 166itr176 sc the supreme court affirming the decision of this court
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Masood Halim
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-01-2004
Reported in : (2005)196CTR(All)404; [2005]275ITR14(All)
section 4 in section 7 of the act by the finance act 1976 with effect from april 1 1976 the position in section section 7 of the act by the finance act 1976 of the act which valuation was done by the tribunal allahabad has referred the following questions of law under section 27 1 of the wealth tax act 1957 hereinafter referred
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Income Tax Vs. Andre Perrian
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Nov-03-2004
Reported in : (2005)198CTR(All)410
explanation to section 9 1 ii was introduced by the finance act 1983 w e f 1st april 1979 the explanation of the department under section 256 1 of the it act 1961 hereinafter referred to as the act against the order been held by kerala high court that the explanation to section 9 1 ii is operative for and from asst yr
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSom Engineering Corporation Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Oct-29-2004
Reported in : (2005)193CTR(All)693; [2005]277ITR92(All)
may be mentioned here that by section 40 of the finance act 1964 the word deliberately occurring in clause c of that the explanation to section 271 1 c of the act clearly attracted in the present case inasmuch as the assessed as the correct income as assessed under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 reduced by the expenditure incurred bona
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Smt. Saroj Madhava Prasad
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-14-2004
Reported in : [2005]273ITR427(All)
section 2 of section 25 of the act by the finance act 1989 with effect from june 1 1988 the commissioner there shall be no order as to costs land acquisition act 1894 c a no 1 1894 section 4 sushil harkauli the amendment made in clause c of the explanation to section 25 2 of the act is similar to the amendment
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTCommissioner of Income-tax Vs. Prakashwati
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Sep-28-2004
Reported in : [2005]276ITR575(All)
included in clause b was substituted for includes by the finance act 1 989 with effect from june 1 1988 5 in clause b was substituted for includes by the finance act 1 989 with effect from june 1 1988 5 the of examination for the purpose of initiating the proceeding under section 263 1 of the act
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT