| First | Prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next | Last |
| Documents Found: 3280 |
| Title |
Forum |
Year |
AGM Protection Devices Ltd. vs DCIT
Cash credits-Share application money received-The assessee company invited share application money from public. It received share application money from several persons. The confirmations from som [LexDoc Id : 392512]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2009 |
Chavassery Service Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Ors. vs ITO and Ors.
Production of evidence by bank-Pendency of proceedings-The Deptt. issued notice to several co-op. banks for particulars of all cash transactions above Rs. 1 lakh. The notices were valid even if no proceedi [LexDoc Id : 389535]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2009 |
CIT and Anr. vs M.J. Mohan
Annual letting value-Unlet portion-Block Period: 1988-89 to 1998-99. The assessee valued the unlet portion of his building for the block period at Rs. 2.25 per square foot, per month. < [LexDoc Id : 384586]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2009 |
CIT and DCIT vs Sunrise Sales Corpn.
[LexDoc Id : 379480]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2009 |
Rajendran Chingaravelu vs Addl. CIT and Ors.
Validity of Requisition under s.132A-Assessee found in possession of huge cash-The assessee disclosed at Hyderabad airport that he was carrying Rs.65lakhs in cash, which was withdrawn from the bank. A bank certificate was shown. [LexDoc Id : 379172]
|
SC |
2009 |
CIT vs Sahara India Savings and Investment Corpn. Ltd.
Chargeable interest-Interest on Bonds and debentures-AY 1992-93.
The assessee had held Bonds and debentures as investment. The interest thereon was not chargeable.
S.2(5), s.2(5A), s.2(5B) and [LexDoc Id : 377275]
|
SC |
2009 |
Rupa Rani Rakshit and Ors. vs Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 376998]
|
SC |
2009 |
Royal Plastic vs CTO and Anr.
[LexDoc Id : 408646]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2009 |
Rajasthan Construction Co. vs TRO
[LexDoc Id : 406199]
|
HC (Madhya Pradesh) |
2009 |
CIT and Anr. vs Sangeetha Granites Ltd.
Scope of: Re-asstt.-Claim of exemption of income-AY 1996-1997. The re-asstt proceedings were initiated to disallow part of claim under s.80HHC. The assessee could not claim that its income was exempt [LexDoc Id : 395515]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2009 |
CIT and Anr. vs Wipro Systems
Business expenses/Perks-Business Promotion Expenses-The expenses incurred on travel accessories or on communication and other accessories being for business promotion and not for employer's benefit were [LexDoc Id : 392757]
|
HC (Karnataka) |
2009 |
T.O. Abraham and Co. vs DCIT and Ors.
Business income v. Income from O.S.-Income from bank deposit-The assessee not being in money lending, the interest bank deposits was assessable under s.56 and not under s.28.
S.28 and s.56 of the Income Tax [LexDoc Id : 392752]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2009 |
Toby Consultants (P) Ltd. vs CIT
Genuineness of cash credit-Finding of Tribunal-AY 2001-2002. The assessee company showed cash credit from its ex-director and his daughter. The Tribunal found that genuineness of the credit not pro [LexDoc Id : 392525]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2009 |
United Shippers Ltd. vs ACIT
Income from shipping business-Paid up Share-Capital-As per S.85 & s.86 of the Companies Act, 1956, both paid up equity capital and preference share capital are includible in computing, "paid up share ca [LexDoc Id : 387735]
|
ITAT (Mumbai) |
2009 |
CIT vs A. Sivakami and Anr.
Depreciation allowance-Ownership v. Beneficial owner-Ay-2002-2003. The assessee was in business of running buses. The 3 buses were not registered in her name. She had taken permission to ply the buses fr [LexDoc Id : 387694]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2009 |
K. Kutaguptan vs Canara Bank and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 387579]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2009 |
G. Elayaperumal vs State of Tamil Nadu, Director of School Education and Chief Educational Officer
[LexDoc Id : 377411]
|
HC (Chennai) |
2009 |
Anil Rao vs UOI and Ors.
[LexDoc Id : 377060]
|
HC (Delhi) |
2009 |
CIT vs West Coast Paper Mills Ltd.
Powers to High Court-Substantive Review-While power of procedural review was inherent in every court or tribunal, the power of substantive review must be conferred by the Statute. Since such [LexDoc Id : 377113]
|
HC (Bombay) |
2009 |
ITO vs Vikash Behal
[LexDoc Id : 392280]
|
ITAT (Calcutta) |
2009 |
ITO vs Vikash Behal
[LexDoc Id : 391643]
|
HC (Calcutta) |
2009 |
Dilip Kumar Kundu vs ITO
[LexDoc Id : 390994]
|
ITAT (Calcutta) |
2009 |
K.K.S.K. Leather Processors (P) Ltd., K.K.S.K. Tanning Co. (P) Ltd. and K.K.S. Khader Mohideen Sahib Sons vs ITO
Lithiyasekar vs ACIT
[LexDoc Id : 388879]
|
ITAT (Chennai) |
2009 |
CIT vs Prasarbharti, Doordarshan Kendra
[LexDoc Id : 388175]
|
HC (Kerala) |
2009 |
Chandrakumar vs ACIT
[LexDoc Id : 387996]
|
ITAT (Chennai) |
2009 |
| |
| First | Prev | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | Next | Last |
| |
