Skip to content

taxcaselaw.com

My account

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

taxcaselaw.com

Cart
Checkout
My account
Shop

Section 40A

Karnataka H.C : Whether the Tribunal is right “in setting aside the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that the expenditure allowed to an extent of Rs.24,00,000/- to Flexsole Raman Limited, which is a subsidiary company out of Rs.48,00,000/- under the head of manufacture and other expenses under Section 40A sub-section 2 clause (b) of the Income Tax Act?

Avijit Das / April 1, 2013

High Court Of Karnataka CIT, Central Circle vs. Raman Boards Ltd. Assessment Year : 1995-96 Section : 40A(2) N. Kumar […]

Delhi H.C : Where disallowance made by Commissioner (Appeals) under section 40A(2) relating to intangible assets did not appear to be backed by law, stay was to be granted against demand of tax

Avijit Das / March 1, 2013

High Court Of Delhi Saipem Triune Engineering (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT Section : 40A(2) Badar Durrez Ahmed And R.V. Easwar,

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 143(3), Sec. 36(1)(ii), Sec. 40A(2), Section 147, Section 148

Bombay H.C : The notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act’) in relation to A.Ys.2005-06 and 2006-07 have admittedly been issued beyond a period of four years of the end of the relevant assessment year

Avijit Das / February 20, 2013

High Court Of Bombay OHM Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT Section 36(1)(ii), 40A(2)(b), 143(3), 147, 148 Asst. Year 2005-06,

Sec. 40A(3), Section 40A

Madras H.C : The Tribunal was right in deleting the additions under section 40A(3) by applying the exemption rule 6DD(i), when the assessee has not proved that (i) the payee had acted as agents of the assessee, (ii) cash payment were to be paid to the growers by the payee on behalf of the assessee, in the capacity of agent

Avijit Das / February 18, 2013

High Court Of Madras CIT vs. Sri Shanmuga Ginning Factory Assessment Year : 1998-99 Section : 40A(3) Mrs. R. Banumathi

Section 40A, Sec. 40(b)

Allahabad H.C : Whether remuneration to partners should be allowed u/s 40(b)(v) only on the basis of declaration made in the partnership deed declaring them as working partner and inserting a clause for payment of remuneration to them without requiring the firm to prove that these partners are actively engaged in conducting the affairs of the business of firm to justify their status as working partner as per explanation 4 below Section 40(b)(v)

Avijit Das / December 10, 2012

High Court Of Allahabad CIT And Another vs. Great City Manufacturing Co. Section 40(B)(V), 40a Asst. Year 2005-2006 R. K.

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The ITAT was correct in law in deleting the addition of Rs.60,19,000/- made by AO and sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 40A (3) of the Income tax Act ignoring the fact that books of accounts were deliberately fabricated to show payments within the permissible limits and the issue of principal agent was never represented before AO or CIT(A)

Avijit Das / October 6, 2012

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana CIT vs. Smt. Shelly Passi Section : 40A and Rule 6DD of the Income

Income Tax Case Laws, Sec. 37(1), Sec. 40A(9), Section 37, Section 40A

S.C : Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the amount has been reimbursed, the quantified amount shall be certified by the Chartered Accountant of the assessee to enable the assessee to make a claim

Avijit Das / September 26, 2012

Supreme Court Of India Kennametal India Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. Section 37(1), 40A(9) Asst. Year 1994-95 S.H. Kapadia, CJ

Sec. 40A(9), Section 40A

S.C : Where assessee claimed that it had spent certain welfare expenses towards providing education to its employees’ children, for applying section 40A(9) to such payment, there should be clear bifurcation between payments made by the assessee to schools and society promoted by it and payments made to schools other than those promoted by it

Avijit Das / September 18, 2012

Supreme Court Of India Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. VS. CIT Assessment Years : 1985-86, 1986-87, 1989-90 To 1992-93

Andhra Pradesh H.C :Without evidence that sellers demanded spot payments , Tribunal can not all cash expenditure u/s 40A(3)

Avijit Das / December 23, 2011

High Court Of Andhra Pradesh CIT Vs. Singamsetty Subba Rao Section : 40A(3) Madan B. Lokur, Cj. And Sanjay Kumar,

Section 35A, Sec. 37(1), Sec. 40A(2), Section 40A

Delhi H.C : Whether, therefore, entire amount of royalty paid by assessee was allowable as business expenditure

Avijit Das / August 19, 2011

High Court Of Delhi CIT vs. V.R.V. Breweries & Bottling Industries Ltd. Assessment Years : 1997-98 To 1999-2000 Section :

Post pagination

← Previous 1 2 3 4 … 16 Next →

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

Scroll to Top