Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.53 seconds)Section 271AAA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The D.C.I.T. vs Shri Arjun Dass Kalwani on 30 November, 2005
Dy.CIT vs. Arjun Dass Kalwani 101 ITD 337 (Jodh.)
Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 24 vs Govind Agarwal Huf on 9 July, 2018
CIT vs. MS Aggarwal (HUF) (2008) 11 DTR 169 (MP)
CIT vs. Ratanlal Vyaparilal Jain (2010) 45 DTR 290 (Guj.)
Dy. Cit vs Late Ratan Lal Jain on 28 September, 2001
"The Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to consider the CBDT Instruction No. 1916
dated 11th May 1994 with respect to the family members in case of the assessee
and following the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Ratan Lal Vijay
Lal Jain. The relief may be computed with respect to the married, unmarried
women and male members. If the jewellery is found within the limit then addition
may be deleted or if it is found in excess then to that extent addition is
sustained."
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) vs Arun Kapoor on 22 July, 2010
"In CIT vs. Arun Kapoor, IT Appeal No. 149 of 2003 decided on 27 July, 2.010,
this court had occasion to consider similar issue where it has been held that the
assessee is entitled to adjustment of seized cash amount towards advance tax liability
from the date of making the application in that regard, In the present case, the assessee
had made request of adjustment of the advance tax liability of Rs. 3,14,312 against the
seized amount of Rs. 5.90,000/- on 28!h Aug. 1989. Since the first instalment of
Advance Tax was payable on 15th Sept. 1989 and the request for adjustment having
been made on 28th Aug., 1989 and reminder on 12th Sept. 1989, no interest was
exigible under ss. 234A and 234B of the Act. The tribunal has rightly held that the
assessee was entitled to adjustment of the said amount and no interest could be
charged on that basis. Therefore, no fault could be found with the approach adopted by
the tribunal."
Smt Sulochana Devi Jaiswal vs Dy. Cit on 29 November, 2002
Sulochna Devi Jaiswal vs. Dy. CIT 90 TTJ 974 (Jab)
[I]. At the time of hearing before the us, the learned counsel for the assessee
submitted that the AO is yet to give effect to the aforesaid order dated 25.8.2017
of ITAT read with aforesaid order dated 15.1.2016 of ITAT, Delhi. In view of this,
the learned AR as well as the learned Departmental Representative appearing
for Revenue submitted that the issues in dispute in present appeal may be
remanded back to the AO for fresh order in accordance with law, after giving
effect to the aforesaid orders dated 25.8.2017 and 15.1.2016 of ITAT, Delhi.