December 2006

Sec. 17(2), Sec. 201(1), Section 192

Karnataka H.C : The assessee company was not liable to deduct TDS under s. 192 of the Act over the issue of its shares under stock option plan to its employees at a concessional rate as it cannot be treated as a perquisite (salary) and therefore the assessee cannot be treated as a defaulter under s. 201(1) of the Act, and consequently no interest under s. 201(1A) of the Act can be levied

/

High Court Of Karnataka CIT & Anr. vs. Infosys Technologies Ltd. Sections 17(2), 192, 201(1) Asst. Years 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000

Sec. 153(2A), Section 153

Delhi H.C : it is imperative in the interest of justice and fair play to set aside and restore the matter to the AO for reconsideration after giving sufficient reasonable opportunity to the assessee to furnish necessary details, explanations and evidences in support of the above and then to pass fresh orders as per law, rule and CBDT circulars

/

High Court Of Delhi Basu Distributors (P) Ltd. vs. ITO Sections ART. 226, 153(2A), 153(3)(ii) Asst. Year 1992-93 Vikramajit Sen

Sec. 37(4)

Allahabad H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in upholding the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of rent of Rs. 31,200 in respect of ‘Transit House’ accommodation on the premise that the same being specifically allowable under s. 30 of the IT Act, the prohibitory provisions of s. 37(4) of the IT Act were not applicable ?

/

High Court Of Allahabad CIT vs. Deepchand Naresh Chand Section 37(4) Asst. Year 1986-87 R.K. Agrawal & Vikram Nath JJ.

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security