| Case Laws |
|
Home  Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2000 2000 (6) This
|
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 363 of 363 Records
-
2000 (6) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ad acted upon the strength of a registration certificate when the registration was current. The Supreme Court in that decision also observed that it was not the duty of persons dealing with registered dealers to find out whether a state of facts existed which would justify the cancellation of their registration. In this case, we are of the view that the aforesaid principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision would be squarely applicable. Admittedly, on the date the payment was made, the society was very much in existence. It is also an admitted fact, subsequent to that the registration was withdrawn. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, we have no hesitation to hold that the writ petitioner was entitled to deduction as given by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no merit in this rule, Rule is accordingly discharged. There will be no order as to costs. All parties are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this order on the usual undertaking.
-
2000 (6) TMI 2 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... section 40(a)(ii) squarely applied to corporate tax. The assessee has not challenged the finding of the Assessing Officer to that extent. Hence, we are not required to go into the question of applicability of section 40(a)(ii) in regard to corporate tax paid by the assessee in Thailand. However, as stated hereinabove, the Department has contended that section 40(a)(ii) will also apply to business tax paid by the assessee in Thailand. On the facts, the Assessing Officer has recorded that in Thailand business tax is not on income, It is on turnover. Under the above circumstances, section 40(a)(ii) has no application to business tax paid by the assessee in Thailand. Under the above circumstances, the Assessing Officer and the Tribunal were right in coming to the above conclusion. Under the above circumstances, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction in respect of business tax paid by it in Thailand. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. C.C. expedited.
-
2000 (6) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee-society? On May 4, 2000, the Division Bench of this court (to which one of us, Kapadia J. is a party) in Income-tax Reference No. 449 of 1995 (CIT v. Chhatrapati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 2000 245 ITR 498 (Bom)) has taken the view that the non-refundable deposit (NRD) constituted trading receipts of the assessee. In view of the above judgment, both the above questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
....
|
| |
