Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Section 35DDA

Section 35DDA, Sec. 36(1)(vii), Sec. 41(1)

Punjab & Haryana H.C : the learned ITAT was right in law in upholding the order of CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.90,97,536/-made by the Assessing Officer on account of bad debts written off disregarding the fact that the assessee had failed o prove that the written off debts had actually become bad and also failed to furnish any justification

Avijit Das / August 28, 2017

High Court Of Punjab & Haryana Pr.CIT vs. ECO Auto Components Private Limited Ajay Kumar Mittal & Amit Rawal, JJ […]

Bombay H.C : Assessee had merely outsourced production of alcoholic beverages to carry on its business more efficiently and it was not a case of closure of business, assessee’s claim for deduction was rightly allowed in terms of section 35DDA

Avijit Das / July 9, 2014

High Court Of Bombay CIT-7, Mumbai Vs. Diageo India (P.) Ltd. Section 35DDA S.C. Dharmadhikari And B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. IT

Karnataka H.C : The assessee is entitled to claim deduction of expenditure incurred on voluntary retirement scheme under Section 35DDA of the Act when the voluntary retirement scheme is not in conformity with2BA of the Rules

Avijit Das / July 11, 2013

High Court Of Karnataka CIT, LTUÂ vs. State Bank Of Mysore Assessment Year : 2007-08 Section : 35DDA D.V. Shylendra Kumar

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 10(10C), Sec. 201(1A), Section 192, Section 201, Section 221, Section 35DDA

Delhi H.C : The assessee cannot be treated as an “assessee-in-default” under Section 201(1A) as the conduct of the assessee in not deducting tax at source under Section 192 from VRS payment was honest and bonafide

Avijit Das / December 16, 2011

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Section 35DDA, 10(10C), 201(1A), 192, 221, 3 Asst. Year 2002-03 A.K.

Sec. 10(10C), Sec. 17(3), Section 17, Section 35DDA, Section 89

Rajasthan H.C : Cessation of employment because of voluntary retirement is also the termination of employment and the amount of the compensation received by the assessee from the employer in connection thereto is covered by ‘profits in lieu of salary’

Avijit Das / October 31, 2007

High Court Of Rajasthan CIT vs. S.N. Sharma Section 10(10C), 17(3)(i), 35DDA, 89 Asst. Year 2002-03 R.M. Lodha & R.S.

Sec. 10(10C), Sec. 17(3), Section 35DDA, Section 89

Rajasthan H.C : Whether the relief under s. 89 of the IT Act, 1961, is admissible to the assessee on the voluntary retirement scheme amount in excess of the exemption under s. 10(10C) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

Avijit Das / February 19, 2007

High Court Of Rajasthan : Jaipur Bench CIT vs. T.K. Paliwal Section 10(10C), 17(3)(i), 35DDA, 89 Asst. Year 2002-03 R.M.

Copyright © 2024 taxcaselaw.com | Powered by Astra WordPress Theme

Scroll to Top