Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: indian partnership act Year: 1999 Page 21 of about 203 results (0.252 seconds)

Jan 15 1999 (TRI)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Vs. Sanghvi Textile Engg. (P) Ltd.

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Ahmedabad

Decided on : Jan-15-1999

Reported in : (1999)65TTJ(Ahd.)425

..... that even if a property contributed by partner be an immovable property, no document, registered or otherwise, is required for transferring the property to the partnership. in that view of the matter, the hon'ble high court has held that the assessee was entitled to the depreciation.in the instant case, ..... kuthiala v. cit (supra) while interpreting the meaning of the expression 'owner' occurring in s. 22 of the act which is in pari materia with s. 9 of the indian income tax act, 1922, for the purpose of determining the question whether the assessee is entitled to claim depreciation under section 32 of ..... (supra), the hon'ble andhra pradesh high court has held as under : "for purposes of claiming benefit under section 32 of the income tax act, the requirement of ownership by the assessee will be deemed to be fulfilled if the assessee has the dominion and control over the property in his ..... particular judgment the hon'ble supreme court was dealing with the expression 'belonging to for the purpose of s. 2(m) of the wealth tax act". after considering the several judgments the tribunal directed the assessing officer to accept the assessee's claim for depreciation on both movable and immovable properties ..... if assessee has dominion and control over the property in his own rights.for purposes of claiming benefit under section 32 of the income tax act, the requirement of ownership by the assessee will be deemed to be fulfilled if the assessee has the dominion and control over the property in .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 1999 (TRI)

Alpha Associates Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-29-1999

..... during the course of hearing of first appeal on the quantum of assessment. briefly stated facts are as under : 2. the assessee is a partnership firm. for the relevant assessment year, the assessee has shown a loss computed under the head "business income" amounting to rs. 91,12 ..... might consider himself to be entitled could never constitute fraud or gross or wilful neglect on the part of any such person. (16) cit vs. indian metals & ferro alloys ltd. (1995) 211 itr 35 (ori) (p. 578 no. 4) where a claim was made with reference to several ..... interpretation which entails a higher levy of taxes.having furnished all the relevant details and having furnished computation in accordance with the provisions of it act assessee has to invoke some interpretation, its account books, the state of affairs as it believes to be and the expert guidance. ..... and after elaborate observations came to a firm conclusion that the entire consideration was capital gain. the assessment order establishes that the ao acting under statutory function came to the conclusion that there was right of the assessee in the immovable property which could be transferred and the ..... sharma executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the assessee to do various activities including representing before all the concerned authorities appointed under various acts, to submit representation or proposal for development of the above property and to obtain sanction thereof, engage architects, surveryors, rc specialists, etc. besides .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 12 1999 (FN)

Friends of Earth, Inc. Vs. Laidlaw Environmental Services (Toc), Inc.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Oct-12-1999

..... by the voluntary conduct of the party that lost in the district court. see u. s. bancorp mortgage co. v. bonner mall partnership, 513 u. s. 18 (1994) (mootness attributable to a voluntary act of a nonprevailing party ordinarily does not justify vacatur of a judgment under review); see also walling v. james v. reuter, inc., 321 ..... inc., bought a facility in roebuck, south carolina, that included a wastewater treatment plant. shortly thereafter, the south carolina department of health and environmental control (dhec), acting under the clean water act (act), 33 u. s. c. 1342(a)(i), granted laidlaw a national pollutant discharge elimination system (npdes) permit. the permit authorized laidlaw to discharge treated water into ..... s economic incentive to delay its attainment of permit limits; they also deter future violations. this congressional determination warrants judicial attention and respect. "the legislative history of the act reveals that congress wanted the district court to consider the need for retribution and deterrence, in addition to restitution, when it imposed civil penalties .... [the district court ..... injunctive relief in such a suit; additionally or alternatively, the court may impose civil penalties payable to the united states treasury. 1365(a). in the clean water act citizen suit now before us, the district court determined that injunctive relief was inappropriate because the defendant, after the institution of the litigation, achieved substantial compliance with the .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //