Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.42 seconds)The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2006
The Finance Act, 2018
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gheru Lal Bal Chand on 28 October, 1976
3. The Commissioner of Income-tax sought a reference to this court and the Tribunal has referred the two questions reproduced above. Learned counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that having regard to the phraseology used in Sub-section (2A) and Sub-section (2B) of Section 37 of the Act and the wide amplitude of the words "expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure", the expenses in question are liable to be disallowed and, in support of this contention, reliance was placed by him on a decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in CIT v. Veeriah Reddiar [1977] 106 ITR 610, which followed the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Brij Raman Dass and Sons v. CIT [1976] 104 ITR 541, and also placed reliance upon CIT v. Gheru Lal Bal Chand [1978] 111 ITR 134 (P & H), CIT v. Khem Chand Bahadur Chand [1981] 131 ITR 336 (P & H) [FB], Mysodet (P.)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Khem Chand Bahadur Chand on 4 June, 1981
15. A Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Khem Chand Bahadur Chand's case [1981] 131 ITR 336 also agreed with the view of the Kerala High Court and held that the word "expenditure in the nature of entertainment expenditure" is of a much wider connotation.
E. D. Sassoon And Company Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Bombay ... on 14 May, 1954
Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 848 (Kar), Chandmull Rajgarhia v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 433 (Pat) and Phool Chand Gajanand v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 265 (All), which have followed the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Reddiar's case [1977] 106 ITR 610.
Chandmul Rajgarhia vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 November, 1985
Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 848 (Kar), Chandmull Rajgarhia v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 433 (Pat) and Phool Chand Gajanand v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 265 (All), which have followed the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Reddiar's case [1977] 106 ITR 610.
Phool Chand Gajanand vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. on 5 November, 1965
Ltd. v. CIT [1987] 163 ITR 848 (Kar), Chandmull Rajgarhia v. CIT [1987] 167 ITR 433 (Pat) and Phool Chand Gajanand v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 265 (All), which have followed the decision of the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Reddiar's case [1977] 106 ITR 610.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Vidarbha ... vs Shah Nanji Nagsi on 7 October, 1977
4. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not liable to be disallowed under Sub-section (2A) or Sub-section (2B) of Section 37 of the Act as the expenditure was not on a lavish or an extravagant scale but was in the nature of a bare necessity and by way of ordinary courtesy and, in support of this contention, placed reliance upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Patel Brothers' case [1977] 106 ITR 424 and upon CIT v. Shah Nanji Nagsi [1979] 116 ITR 292 (Bom), CIT v. Corporation Bank Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 271 (Kar), Addl.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Corporation Bank Ltd. on 2 August, 1988
4. Learned counsel for the assessee contended that the expenditure incurred by the assessee is not liable to be disallowed under Sub-section (2A) or Sub-section (2B) of Section 37 of the Act as the expenditure was not on a lavish or an extravagant scale but was in the nature of a bare necessity and by way of ordinary courtesy and, in support of this contention, placed reliance upon a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Patel Brothers' case [1977] 106 ITR 424 and upon CIT v. Shah Nanji Nagsi [1979] 116 ITR 292 (Bom), CIT v. Corporation Bank Ltd. [1979] 117 ITR 271 (Kar), Addl.