Taxation Laws Amendment Act 2006 Section 27 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: taxation laws amendment act 2006 section 27 Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat hyderabad Page 1 of about 357 results (2.035 seconds)Flores Gunther Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)22ITD504(Hyd.)
of the assessment orders section 263 2 was substituted by taxation laws amendment act 1984 w e f 1 10 1984 of it act 1961 by section 47 of the taxation laws amendment act 1984 the limitation for passing an order under time expired the period of limitation was enlarged by the amendment to the act the amendment to the period of limitation have been exempt under section 10 14 of the it act as each of these assessees was deputed to work with ii as they fall under section 9 l vi or section 9 l vii in either case the amounts sought to d sassoon amp co ltd v cit 1954 26 itr 27 and held that it is clear for them that the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTJeevanlal Narsi and Sons Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1992)42ITD719(Hyd.)
and extracted the following from that decision though equity and taxation are often strangers attempts should be made that these do situation that the second proviso was inserted by the taxation laws amendment act 1984 section 16 of the said amendment act before the high court the a p general sales tax amendment act act 9 of 1970 was passed by the provisions scope to disallow any amount under section 43b of the act in short it was the contention of the assessee that that case as follows the words at the commencement of section 41 1 where an allowance or deduction has been made srikakollu subba rao v union of india 1988 38 taxman 272 however in the case before us it is not clear
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMerit Enterprises Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2007)288ITR226(Hyd.)
part 1 of the first schedule refers to rate of taxation for the assessment year beginning on 1 st april and for this proposition reliance is placed on the following case laws cit v sree senhavalli textiles p ltd thus and therefore for imposition of surcharge was also in doubt prior to amendment in section 113 of the act c there was contradiction well as deduction of tax at source thus the finance act though a subsequent legislation it does not have an independent proviso to 13 12 second proviso to 2 2 2001 section 2 3 refers section 2 8 to rate in part section the cbdt also in its circular no 8 dated 27 8 2002 238 itr st 61 clarified that the provision
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMohammed Omer Family Trust Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1992)40ITD1(Hyd.)
in finance bill 1984 paras 44 to 47 speak about taxation of business profits of private trust at maximum marginal rate 86 is concerned the problem is solved by the taxation laws amendment act 1984 in other cases since the language of the income tax officer s view held that after the amendment the profits and gains of the trust must be taxed was that having exercised option under section 166 of the act to assess the beneficiaries the ito cannot then assess the shown before us in which the assessments were made under section 143 1 as it is it is not clear to of all officers working in your charge f no 279 2785 itj dated 29 7 1985 from central board of direct
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTG. Venkatesham Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1986)16ITD462(Hyd.)
of section 64 1 of the act introduced by the taxation laws amendment act 1975 with effect from 1 4 1976 section 64 1 of the act introduced by the taxation laws amendment act 1975 with effect from 1 4 1976 there 64 1 of the act introduced by the taxation laws amendment act 1975 with effect from 1 4 1976 there was case dealing with section 26a of the indian income tax act 1922 and has no application the decision in n annamalai ground is with regard to the levy of interest under sections 139 8 and 215 of the act in our view getting one fourth share the ito passed his order dated 27 4 1974 under section 171 3 of the income tax
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNageswara Rice Working Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer.
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1989)30ITD143(Hyd.)
that in the statement of objects and reasons introducing the taxation laws amendment bill 1984 it has been specifically mentioned that in section 40 b by section 10 of the taxation laws amendment act 1984 which came into effect from 1 4 the various high courts in the country and the present amendment to section 40 b through explanations 2 and 3 following as expressed by the parliament through the amendment to the act it is not for us to twist the fiscal provision consider is that the expression any sum payable found in section 43b would refer to a sum which has already fallen
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTNatco Exports Vs. Dy. Cit
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (2003)86ITD445(Hyd.)
years 1995 96 and 1996 97 he argued that the taxation laws amendment act had changed the method of allowing depreciation 1995 96 and 1996 97 he argued that the taxation laws amendment act had changed the method of allowing depreciation with shall be deemed to be short term capital gains c amendments of a consequential nature have been made to clause 1 section 32 had been inserted by the finance no 2 act 1980 to provide for additional depreciation in respect of new 2 clause c of section 35 2b section 38 2 section 55 1 section 57 ii sub sections 2 and 3
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTAssociated Cotton Tape Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1990)34ITD367(Hyd.)
now to the objection that explanation 2 inserted by the taxation laws amendment act 1984 only with effect from 1 4 spirit of explanations 2 and 3 introduced by the taxation laws amendment bill 1984 should be followed with respect to the the objection that explanation 2 inserted by the taxation laws amendment act 1984 only with effect from 1 4 1985 and explanation has been forthcoming even before us the commissioner s action in setting aside the assessments in our considered opinion cannot being unavoidable to test the veracity of the action under section 263 had to be made by us he will make 1984 for the assessment year 1978 79 available at pages 27 to 31 of the paper book the answer is that
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTinstrumentation Engineers (P.) Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1990)32ITD406(Hyd.)
held that the amendment brought in section 263 by the taxation laws amendment act 1984 came into effect from 1 10 of the amendment brought out in section 263 by taxation laws amendment act 1984 he had powers to revise the orders the amendment brought in section 263 by the taxation laws amendment act 1984 came into effect from 1 10 84 the exercise his powers under section 263 of the income tax act firstly we hold that the learned cit sought to revise raised for exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under section 263 by following the supreme court s decision in state cause notice dt 10 8 80 was provided at pages 27 amp 28 of the paper compilation filed before us as
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTinspecting Assistant Vs. Hy-way Transport
Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Hyderabad
Reported in : (1987)21ITD354(Hyd.)
of the 1961 act as it stood prior to the taxation laws amendment act 1970 the legislature in its superior wisdom the income tax act 1961 as amended by the taxation laws amendment act 1970 with effect from 1 4 1971 which income tax act 1961 as amended by the taxation laws amendment act 1970 with effect from 1 4 1971 which is section as regards the time limit unlike under the 1922 act or unlike under section 275 as it stood prior to 246 or an appeal to the appellate tribunal under sub section 2 of section 253 after the expiration of a period 5 3 1966 at that relevant point of time section 275 was as follows no order imposing a penalty under this
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT