Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: tezpur university act 1993 section 3 the university Court: income tax appellate tribunal itat chandigarh Page 1 of about 1 results (0.337 seconds)

Jun 30 2000 (TRI)

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Metalman Auto (P.) Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh

Reported in : (2001)78ITD327(Chd.)

..... years, namely, the year in which the lump sum consideration is paid and the five immediately succeeding years. where the know-how is developed in a laboratory, university or institution referred to in sub-section (2b) of section 32a, the consideration shall be spread equally over three years." now in this case, the assessee had ..... is whether the expenditure could be allowed under section 35ab. it was the contention of the ld counsel for the assessee that there being specific section in the act, expenditure incurred should be allowed under section 35ab. for this purpose, it would be relevant to refer to the memorandum explaining the purpose of provisions of ..... law arising from facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings. he, therefore, submitted that expenditure incurred by the assessee is allowable under section 35ab of the act.subsequently the ld counsel for the assessee furnished the page of the judgment of the supreme court in the case of madras auto service (p.) ltd. (supra .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 19 2004 (TRI)

ito Vs. BhasIn Rice and General Mills

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Chandigarh

Reported in : (2004)87TTJ(Chd.)1

..... income of the assessee.the assessing officer further observed that yield of rice bran, phuck, etc. shown was low in comparison to yield fixed by the punjab agriculture university. the assessing officer accordingly held that a sum of rs. 35,000 would be considered in making the estimate' of the income of the assessee.the assessing officer ..... the order of the commissioner (appeals) in case of m/s ganesh rice mills dated 15-6-1994 cannot be interpreted as acceptance of his action as a universal proposition of law. the learned departmental representative therefore submitted that order had been passed on misconception and even otherwise the revenue is not barred from differentiating the same.with ..... set off to the extent of rs. 33,87,550 against addition made under section 68/69a of the act) was set aside back to the file of commissioner (appeals).(vii) the directions in order dated 22-6-1993 were in connection with the trading addition of rs. 42,11,331 as the assessee had submitted that these .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //