citedby: 105735

C.I.T. vs Shastra Investment Pvt. Ltd. on 12 December, 2007

In view of the law laid down in the judgement referred to hereinabove, we answer the first question in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, whereas the second question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

Gujarat High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - A R Dave - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv vs Sikandarkhan N on 2 May, 2013

Reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Upnishad Investment P. Ltd and others reported in [2003] 260 ITR 532, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to interpret expressions receivable and due . It was observed that expressions receivable is used with reference to the recipient and the word payable is used with reference to the payer.

Gujarat High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 83 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Baramati Sahakari Bank Ltd., Baramati vs Assessee on 15 April, 2013

In the Finance Bill both the words paid and payable were used. However the word paid was subsequently dropped which shows that s. 40(a)(ia) was meant to be applicable only if the amount covered therein was "payable" at the end of the year. Reference may be made for the scope and effect of s. 40(a)(ia) as clarified by CBDT in Circular No 5 of 2005, dt 15th July, 2005 to show that the intention to introduce this provision was brought to curb bogus payments by creating bogus liability. - CIT v. Upnishad Investment (P)Ltd & Ors (2002) 177 CTR (Guj) 176: (2003) 260 ITR 532 (Guj) applied."

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinay Ashwinikumar Joneja , Pune vs Assessee on 3 October, 2013

Reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Upnishad Investment P. Ltd and others reported in [2003] 260 ITR 532, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to interpret expressions "receivable" and "due". It was observed that expressions "receivable" is used with reference to the recipient and the word "payable" is used with reference to the payer.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 74 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. B. P. Jain,, Dhule vs Assessee on 18 February, 2015

Reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Upnishad Investment P. Ltd and others reported in [2003] 260 ITR 532, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to interpret expressions "receivable" and "due". It was observed that expressions "receivable" is used with reference to the recipient and the word "payable" is used with reference to the payer.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sangamner Taluka Sahakari Dudh Utpadak ... vs Assessee on 20 February, 2015

Reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax vs. Upnishad Investment P. Ltd and others reported in [2003] 260 ITR 532, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to interpret expressions "receivable" and "due". It was observed that expressions "receivable" is used with reference to the recipient and the word "payable" is used with reference to the payer.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bhavook Chandraprakash Tripathi, ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 18 March, 2015

Reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner of Income- Tax vs. Upnishad Investment P. Ltd and others reported in [2003] 260 ITR 532, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to interpret expressions "receivable" and "due". It was observed that expressions "receivable" is used with reference to the recipient and the word "payable" is used with reference to the payer.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

I.R.C. Logistics Services, Kolhapur vs Assessee on 22 May, 2012

In the Finance Bill both the words paid and payable were used. However the word paid was subsequently dropped which shows that s. 40(a)(ia) was meant to be applicable only if the amount covered therein was "payable" at the end of the year. Reference may be made for the scope and effect of s. 40(a)(ia) as clarified th by CBDT in Circular No 5 of 2005, dt 15 July, 2005 to show that the intention to introduce this provision was brought to curb bogus payments by creating bogus 4 liability. - CIT v. Upnishad Investment (P)Ltd & Ors (2002) 177 CTR (Guj) 176: (2003) 260 ITR 532 (Guj) applied."

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.C. Biyani Projects Pvt. Ltd., ... vs Assessee on 10 July, 2012

In the Finance Bill both the words paid and payable were used. However the word paid was subsequently dropped which shows that s. 40(a)(ia) 5 was meant to be applicable only if the amount covered therein was "payable" at the end of the year. Reference may be made for the scope and effect of s. 40(a)(ia) as clarified by CBDT in Circular No 5 of 2005, dt 15th July, 2005 to show that the intention to introduce this provision was brought to curb bogus payments by creating bogus liability. - CIT v. Upnishad Investment (P)Ltd & Ors (2002) 177 CTR (Guj) 176: (2003) 260 ITR 532 (Guj) applied."

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Panalal Shriram Malu, Sangli vs Assessee on 7 August, 2012

In the Finance Bill both the words paid and payable were used. However the word paid was subsequently dropped which shows that s. 40(a)(ia) was meant to be applicable only if the amount covered therein 3 was "payable" at the end of the year. Reference may be made for the scope and effect of s. 40(a)(ia) as clarified by CBDT in Circular No 5 of 2005, dt 15th July, 2005 to show that the intention to introduce this provision was brought to curb bogus payments by creating bogus liability. - CIT v. Upnishad Investment (P)Ltd & Ors (2002) 177 CTR (Guj) 176: (2003) 260 ITR 532 (Guj) applied."

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results