Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1991 1991 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 381 to 385 of 385 Records

• 1991 (1) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation, Roads, Drains And Bridges In Factory

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... (Appeals) s decision who allowed depreciation on the additions made towards roads and drains ? The question is covered by the decision of this court in CIT V. Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. 1984 150 ITR 23. Following the aforesaid decision, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 4 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
  

  Depreciation, Investment Allowance, New Industrial Undertaking, Plant

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... telephone system is also plant and in which we have discussed the relevant principle. Applying the said decision, we have no hesitation to affirm the view expressed by the Appellate Tribunal. The generating station will have to be treated as a plant. The question will have to be answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In respect of the two units referred to 9th and 10th units-relief under section 80J was claimed. That was not allowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that no separate accounts had been maintained. The assessee produced relevant accounts before the Commissioner, and, consequently, the relief was granted in respect of the 9th unit. It was also established that the 10th unit was commissioned during the relevant year. In these circumstances, following the decision of this court in Ravi Machine Tools (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1978 114 ITR 459 (Kar), the third question is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. References answered accordingly.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 3 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
  

  Business, Income, Reference

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... er section 256(1) of the Act to state the case and to make a reference of the aforesaid question to this court and the Tribunal, by its order dated April 17, 1989, refused to make the reference and the application before it by the Revenue was rejected. We have heard Mr. Singhal, learned counsel for the Revenue, and have gone through the order of the Tribunal and other authorities. There can be no dispute that a dispute is still going on in between the parties, Patel Holdings and the assessee, and a suit for the recovery of the aforesaid amount has also been filed against the assessee which is pending in the Bombay High Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no question of law arises in the facts and circumstances of the case and we decline to call for the statement of facts and the application is, therefore, rejected. Anyhow, in future, if the suit is decided in favour of the assessee, the Revenue will be free to include the aforesaid amount as income of the assessee.

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 2 - SC ORDER
  

  In view of the decision of this court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India, the assessee-respondent is not entitled to the refund which has been granted by the High Court u/r 19A(3)

  ---

• 1991 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether in an appeal filed under section 248, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to deal with the quantum of the sum chargeable under the provision of the said Act from which the assessee was liable to deduct tax under section 195 thereof - held that AAC's right is not restricted to total denial; but covers partial denial also with reference to payment subjected to deduction of tax at source.

  ---

1 ....1617181920