Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Rajmal Lakhichand vs Asstt. Cit on 24 March, 2000

Puneet Sahdev, Jammu vs The Income Tax Officer, Jammu on 30 June, 2020

Further, we find that the ITAT, Pune in the case of Rajmal Lakhichand vs. Asstt. CIT (2001) 79 ITD 84 (Pune), had observed, that the provisions of Sec 40A(3) are to be invoked when the Department has evidence with itself that the assessee had made payments in cash exceeding the prescribed limits. It was observed by the Tribunal that disallowance cannot be made merely on the basis of a presumption that the assessee must have made payments in cash and that too exceeding the prescribed limits.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. As ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 13 February, 2015

We also respectfully take note of the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court wherein it was authoritatively held by their lordships of Bombay High Court having regard to the fact and conduct of the assessee in the case of Ram Narayan Rajmal vs CIT 24 ITR 442. In the present case, as we have noted earlier that the ONGC filed original return and revised return as representative assessee of non-resident M/s Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. voluntarily and adhering to clause 11 of the agreement between ONGC and 12 ITA No.652/Del/2012 Asstt.Year: 2005-06 M/s Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd., non-resident company and this act and conduct of the assessee ONGC clearly shows that the ONGC waived benefit of privilege available u/s 163(2) of the Act. In this situation, the assessee agent i.e. ONGC cannot turn around and raise an objection of failure to provide an opportunity of being heard u/s 163(2) of the Act as the circumstances clearly reveal that original return for the year under consideration as well as revised return under appeal was filed u/s 139 of the Act accepting the position of agent/representative assessee of non-resident company M/s Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. UK remained unaltered.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asst Cit 25(2), Mumbai vs Metcraft Engineering Corporation, ... on 15 February, 2017

The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in case of ITO v. Kanchanwala Gems reported in 122 TTJ 854 In the case of ITO vs. Permanand, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench reported in 107 TTJ 395 ' , In the case of R.K.Synthetics vs. ITO reported at 81 TTJ 909; the Hon'ble ITAT, Jcdhpur Bench Hon'ble Chandigarh IT,AT in the case of ITO v. Arora Alloys Ltd. (2012)[12 ITR (trib) 26.3], Rajmal Lakhichand v. Asstt. CIT [2001] 79 ITD 84 (Pune) .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1