Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.34 seconds)
Sh. Anshul Goyal, Ludhiana vs Acit, C-Vii, Ludhiana on 25 May, 2018 cites

Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987

3. The assessee has filed the appeal which is barred by limitation by two days. The assessee explained that the two day delay was due to calculation of dates for the months of July and August both of which are 31 days. He relied on the judgment in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji 1987 AIR 1353 wherein it was held that if the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the due date the same can be condoned. Respectfully following the ratio of the judgment we hereby condone the delay.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 5846 - M P Thakkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Panchkula vs M/S Hry State Agricultural Marketing ... on 20 February, 2017

6. Ground No. 3 and 2 of ITA NO. 1427 and 2 & 2.1 of ITA No. 1428/CHD/2017 Addition under section 14A 6.1 The Assessing Officer has disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,26,398/- on account of disallowance under section 14A as the assessee has invested Rs. 80,35,624/- in securities with the stock broker. On perusal of the record (Para 4.3 of A.O) we find that the Assessing Officer has not fulfilled the requirements of Section 14(2) pertaining to non satisfaction. The AO has not given any reason to re-compute the disallowance except relying on the Circular No. 5 of CBDT 2014 wherein it was directed to the field officers to disallow amount under section 14A even if the assessee has derived no exempt income. The applicability of Circular has been nullified by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing (P&H High Court). Hence keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court we hereby delete the addition made under section 14A.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - A K Mittal - Full Document
1