Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2006 2006 (10) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 489 Records
-
2006 (10) TMI 96 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Wealth-tax - Reversionary value of the land could not be taken into consideration where the value of the property was determined by capitalizing the annual letting value as per rule 1BB (inserted from April1, 1979 in wealth tax) Tribunal was legally correct in allowing deduction of one-sixth for repairs and 6 per cent. for collection charges for working out the net annual letting value of the property
-
2006 (10) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Whether rope asbestos and graphite asbestos used by the manufacturer for sealing the holes in their Cement plant and machinery are covered under the definition of Capital goods to avail credit impugned items necessary for smooth and efficient running of the machinery - other items namely wire rope is also used as a hoist in raw mill, cement mill, essential for completing the manufacture Credit allowable.
-
2006 (10) TMI 94 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Income from house property Section 22 and 23 AO can not assess the rental income on the basis of reasonable rent ignoring the actual rent It is not necessary that standard rent must be fixed by the Rent controller AO can calculate the standard rent of the property u/s 22 and 23
-
2006 (10) TMI 93 - HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Common inputs clearance of paper on payment of duty as well as under Not. 3/01 since asessee is reversing credit in respect of inputs used in exempted goods then reversal of credit is respect of inputs lying in stock is not required no substantial question of law arise
-
2006 (10) TMI 92 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Interest on borrowed capital held that, if assessee had sufficient funds other than borrowed money for giving the mount as loan to any other concern, the conditions of sec. 36(1)(ii) has been complied with & assessee is entitled to full allowance of interest for A.Y. 1980-81
-
2006 (10) TMI 91 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Held that though there was prescription of time limit u/s 140A read with sec. 139 for payment of tax, there was time limit which expired on Nov 30 Levy of one month interest because of payment of tax on 1.12.97 instead of 30.11.97 (because of holiday on 30.11.97) is not sustainable
-
2006 (10) TMI 90 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Interest on loans raised for business purpose advanced loans amount on interest free basis to certain parties tribunal wasnt justified in allowing deduction for the interest on the ground that there was no direct nexus between the borrowing & interest free advances revenues appeal allowed
-
2006 (10) TMI 89 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Disallowance of telephone expenses installed at the residence of the partners is justified but disallowance is restricted to 1/7th of such expenses borrowed money used to grant interest free loans to sister concern for non-business purposes hence interest is not allowed for deduction
-
2006 (10) TMI 88 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Validity of CBDTs instruction that Assessing Officer can refer to Transfer Price Officer if transaction value increase more than Rs 5 crore such instruction are based on correct interpretation of relevant provisions and are not contrary to the objective of chapter X so these are valid
-
2006 (10) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Order passes on account undervaluation in pursuance of evidence given by petitioner respect of transfer of two other flats above 2 instances werent made available to petitioners to enable them to defend so order passed u/c XX-C are liable to be set aside
-
2006 (10) TMI 86 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty imposed on account of concealment of income as returned income was shown lesser than assessed income apart from assessment proceedings no any fresh material or any fresh evidence produced by assessee in the penalty proceedings to show their innocence so penalty imposed is justified
-
2006 (10) TMI 85 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Writ petition against orders passed u/r 11(5) rejecting the objections of the assessee held that alternative remedy by way of filing a suit is available with assessee u/r 11(6) so writ court is not going to interfere with the impugned writ petition
-
2006 (10) TMI 84 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Tribunal is right to decline to permit the assessee to produce additional evidence (stock register) before it for the first time Accounts disclosed by assessee rejected as stock register was not produced tribunal is justified in sustaining the adhoc addition
-
2006 (10) TMI 83 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable trust the fact that some of the devotees were given cash assistance could not be a ground to hold that all the beneficiaries were identifiable or the trust was private trust held that impugned trust is public charitable trust.
-
2006 (10) TMI 82 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Expenditure on replacement of machinery and expenditure on up gradation of computers by changing certain parts will be treaded as revenue expenditure not capital expenditure.
-
2006 (10) TMI 81 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Deduction u/s 80G CIT(A) directed AO to treat the trust as a charitable trust and delete the addition Department has filed a further appeal against the order of the CIT(A) and the appeal is still pending Court unable to reach final conclusion
-
2006 (10) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT
In cases of litigation between Government bodies prior clearance by the COD to litigate is mandatory and in a situation within a month of filing an appeal also permitted HC before deciding the matter ascertained that whether assessee would qualify mandatory requirement or not
-
2006 (10) TMI 79 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure AO added an amount to the total income of assessee on the ground of that the assessee had pay huge amounts in cash to its sister unit exceeding the prescribed limit Not finding any exceptional circumstances under rule 6DD(j)(1)and (2), hence addition sustained
-
2006 (10) TMI 78 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Wealth tax - Petitioner did not file Wealth Tax return in time. In response to a notice u/s 17, he filed a belated return. Penalty notice was issued. Penalty notice was issued but the section under which return was filed was not specifically indicated held that notice is still valid and penalty is imposable.
-
2006 (10) TMI 77 - HIGH COURT, GAUHATI
Penalty - Tribunal imposed penalty on the assessee in respect to delay in furnishing of audit report without providing any reasonable cause for delay - HC found no error in the tribunal order and upheld the order of tribunal
....
|
|