Register free!

Banking - Judgement [ 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 1949 1948 1947 1946 1945 1944 1943 1942 1941 1940 1939 1938 1937 1936 1935 1934 1933 1932 1931 1930 1929 1928 1927 1926 1925 1924 1923 1922 1921 1920 1919 1918 1917 1915 1914 1902 1900 1896 Select Court HC SC Others   First | Prev | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | Next | Last Documents Found: 2418    Title Forum  Year CIT vs J.K. Cotton Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. Business Income-Sale of old assets-A.Y. 1976-77. The proceeds from the sale of old assets were required to be treated as the assessee's business income under s.41(2) of Income Tax Act 1 [LexDoc Id : 262827] Allahabad HC 2005 Vidit Kumar Ram Krishna Agarwala vs DCIT [LexDoc Id : 262353] ITAT Agra 2005 Prabhu Dayal Lallu Ram vs CIT [LexDoc Id : 262164] Punjab and Haryana HC 2005 JCIT vs Sidheshwari Paper Udyog Ltd. [LexDoc Id : 262058] ITAT (Delhi) 2005 CIT vs Professional Information Systems and Management [LexDoc Id : 240122] HC (Gujarat) 2005 CIT vs Prabhu Dayal Lallu Ram [LexDoc Id : 240121] Punjab and Haryana HC 2005 CIT vs Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. [LexDoc Id : 239267] Chennai HC 2005 CIT vs Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers Interest paid to partners-Netting of interest paid and received-Only the net amount paid by the assessee firm was to be disallowed in case where the interest was paid and also received from its partners. LexDoc Id : 301185] HC (Allahabad) 2005 ITO vs Tirath Ram Gupta Unexplained investments-Gifts received through NRI account-The assessee’s explanation that his opening capital came from the gifts received through the NRI account could not be accepted since his relationship [LexDoc Id : 293264] ITAT (Chandigarh) 2005 Bhavin J. Vakil vs DCIT Validity of reassessment-Filing of return, No assessment made-The notice issued under s.143(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961, but not served upon the assessee in due time, would not be a bar for reopening of the ass [LexDoc Id : 292107] ITAT (Mumbai) 2005 Addl. CIT vs B.N. Khandelwal Bad debt- Condition for allowance-Money lending business, Necessity of licence-AY 1997-98. The loans written off as bad debts could not be allowed since no evidence was found to support the contention that the assessee was engage [LexDoc Id : 287764] ITAT (Mumbai) 2005 JCIT vs Arihant Industries Ltd. [LexDoc Id : 283996] ITAT Chandigarh 2005 Arihant Industries Ltd. vs JCIT [LexDoc Id : 283938] ITAT Chandigarh 2005 CIT vs Harbhajan Sarvjeet Associates Industrial undertaking: Investment Allowance-Assessee in business of constructing bridges-A.Y. 1985-86: The assessee was not entitled to 'Investment Allowance' under s.32A of the Income Tax Act 1961 because it was not an 'industrial underta [LexDoc Id : 283604] Allahabad HC 2005 Exim Concept vs UOI and Ors. [LexDoc Id : 281931] HC (Delhi) 2005 CIT vs Sunil Kumar Goel Duty of Tribunal-Passing a reasoned order-AY 1991-92: Every judicial or quasi-judicial authority was required to record reasons in support of its decisions. The Tribunal's impugned order was s [LexDoc Id : 281777] HC (Punjab and Haryana) 2005 CIT vs U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. Industrial undertaking-Construction Business-A.Y. 1978-79 and 1979-80: The assessee, being engaged in the business of construction of bridges, etc., was not an industrial undertaking and therefor [LexDoc Id : 281653] Allahabad HC 2005 Kanakateegala Enterprises vs CIT Contingent liability-Amounts reserved for future losses-A.Y. 1988-89: The amount that the assessee had set aside in anticipation of future losses, was a contingent liability; therefore it was not an allowab [LexDoc Id : 280790] Andhra Pradesh HC 2005 CIT vs Swadeshi Mining and Mfg. Co. Ltd. [LexDoc Id : 279218] Allahabad HC 2005 Bhaiyalal Shyam Behari vs CIT Unexplained cash credits-Benefit of peak credit-The assessee could not claim the benefit of peak credit under s.68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, as he did not own all the cash credits that had been en [LexDoc Id : 263882] HC (Allahabad) 2005 CIT vs Dinesh Mills Ltd. [LexDoc Id : 263415] Gujarat HC 2005 CIT vs I.G. Gandhi Silk Mills Ltd. Ascertaining of liability-Disputed liability-The Tribunal's additions to the undischarged excise liability were justified, as although the liability was disputed, it had accrued in the relevant y [LexDoc Id : 262628] Gujarat HC 2005 DCIT vs Roadmaster Industries of India Ltd. [LexDoc Id : 262174] ITAT Chandigarh 2005 KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs DCIT [LexDoc Id : 239385] ITAT 2005 Mangalam Publications (I) (P) Ltd. vs DCIT [LexDoc Id : 239059] Kerala HC 2005   First | Prev | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | Next | Last