Sec. 32(1)

Sec. 32(1), Sec. 37(1), Section 32, Section 37

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unpaid amount of bottling fee has, on furnishing of the bank guarantee to be treated as actual payment and accordingly allowing the deduction in respect of the same under s. 43B of the Act, even though the sum has not been actually paid before the due date of filing the return under s. 139(1) of the Act.

/

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. Sections 32(1), 37(1), 43B Asst. Year 1992-93 Rajesh Balia &

Sec. 32(1), Section 43, Section 43B

Rajasthan H.C : Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the unpaid amount of bottling fee has, on furnishing of the bank guarantee, to be treated as actual payment and accordingly, allowing the deduction in respect of the same under s. 43B of the Act, even though the sum has not been actually paid before the due date of filing the return under s. 139(1)

/

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. Udaipur Distillery Co. Ltd. Sections 32(1), 43B, 260A Asst. Year 1992-93 Rajesh Balia &

Sec. 260A, Sec. 32(1)

Karnataka H.C : Whether the Tribunal was right in law in treating the transaction between the appellant and APSEB as a colourable transaction for the avoidance of payment of tax and in applying the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in McDowell & Co. Ltd. vs. CTO (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 126 : (1985) 154 ITR 148 (SC).

/

High Court Of Karnataka Avasarala Automation Ltd. vs. JCIT Sections 32(1), 260A Asst. Year 1996-97 P. Vishwanatha Shetty & Ajit

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security