391 ITR

Sec. 36(1)(iii), Section 36

Punjab & Haryana H.C : The Learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has grossly erred in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer and order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh with regard to the disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.28,70,608/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act which is the actual expenditure incurred by the appellant but neither allowed as a deduction u/s 36(1)(iii) as business expenditure nor treated as capital expenditure

/

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana Thukral Regal Shoes vs. CIT, Chandigarh Section 36(1)(iii) Assessment year 2009-10 S.J. Vazifdar, ACTG.

Sec. 245BA

Madras H.C : the petitioners filed another application on 10.07.2015 for the same assessment years requesting the Commission to take up the matter and consider the same and this application was rejected by order dated 15.07.2015 and the Commission has stated that the petitioners have re-submitted their applications along with circulars issued by the CBDT

/

High Court Of Madras Arun Mammen vs. Union Of India Section 245BA T.S. Sivagnanam, J. W.P. Nos. 22216 To 22219

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security