In favour of Revenue

Sec. 234C

Madras H.C : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai, respondent herein, disallowed the expenses on amortization of amount paid in respect of leasehold land, disallowance under Section 14A and advertisement expenditure, amounting to Rs.4,47,10,282/-. The assessing officer also charged interest, under Section 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.86,31,067/-, as against Rs.68,87,057/-, calculated in the return of income.

/

High Court Of Madras MRF Ltd. vs. DCIT, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai Section 234C Assessment Year 2007-08 S. Manikumar […]

Section 253

Madras H.C : The Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in not admitting the appeal without properly considering the reasons shown for the said belated filing of the appeal before them, proving perversity in their findings even though the belated filing of the appeal before them was in consequence to the change of auditor and further due to the time taken in pursuing the alternate remedy available under the statute while overlooking the decision of this Hon’ble Court reported in 153 ITR 596

/

High Court Of Madras Inderchand D. Kochar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-II(2), Chennai Section : 253 Assessment Year : 2006-07 S.

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.

Income Tax Case Laws

Kerala H.C : The assessee filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the contention of the assessee that Sri. Suresh was only an employee and not a sub-contractor for transportation of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas manufactured and marketed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited whose distributor is the assessee

/

High Court Of Kerala Smt. Prasanna Radha Krishnan vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Calicut Section 194C, 40(a)(ia) Antony Dominic And Dama

Section 80P, Section 63, Section 64

Calcutta H.C : The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by allowing deduction on income earned by the assessee from investment in banks and other financial institutions has rendered the provisions of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) nugatory as the said section of the Act allows deduction to a cooperative Society engaged in carrying on business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members

/

High Court Of Calcutta CIT, Kolkata-X vs. South Eastern Railway Employees Co-Op Credit Society Ltd. Section 80P , 63 And

Scroll to Top
Malcare WordPress Security