Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.06 seconds)
Documents citing Industrial Cables (I) Ltd. vs Acit on 29 July, 2005

Urja Products Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 29 December, 2010

6. On the other hand, from the side of the Revenue, Mr.S.S. Shukla Learned Departmental Representative appeared and placed reliance on Industrial Cables (I) Ltd. vs. ACIT reported at [2005]97 ITD 267 (Chandigarh) for the proposition that once the assessee had not stopped the business with the said debtor agency and there was a reasonable expectation of recovery, then mere writing off of debt was not sufficient.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Schemtz India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 5 January, 2010

19. We therefore feel that deduction under Section 10A should be on the basis of sub-section 4 of Section 10A and computed on the profit and gains of the business of the undertaking multiplied by export turnover to the total turnover of the business carried on by the undertaking. The formula cannot be expanded by including profits (or loss), export turnover or total turnover of other units. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of M/s. Huawel Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 9/Bang/07 'B' Bench (unreported) wherein it has been held as under:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nrb Bearings Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 10 December, 2009

), Nandlal Vithaldas vs. CIT 180 ITR 609, CIT vs. Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. 262 ITR 97, South India Surgical Co. Ltd, vs. ACIT and Industrial Cable (I) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 97 ITD 267 (Chan- Trib). On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Director (Int. Taxn.) vs. Oman International Bank SAOG (2009) 184 Taxman 314 (Bom) held that the disallowance is not justified and accordingly deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Travelmatics Pvt. Ltd.,, Chandigarh vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 December, 2014

16. The above clearl y shows that any bonus or commission paid to an employee for services rendered if the same was payable as dividend are not allowable. From this it becomes clear under which head the expenditure has been claimed is not material but the mandate of the provision is that if such commission was payable as dividend to the such persons then such commission is not allowable. Had the assessee company not paid the commission, the amount would have remained with the company which could have ultimatel y be paid to the directors onl y by way of dividend. Therefore, in our opinion the decision of Special Bench in the case of Dalal Broacha Stock Broking (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT (supra) is squarel y applicable. The head note of that case reads as under:-
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next