Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 81 (0.73 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Lokhandwala Construction Inds. Ltd. on 15 January, 2003

Therefore we are of the view that presumption is to be assumed in favour of the assesse and not against assesse. Hence, we reject the formulae adopted by CIT (A) of working out proportionate disallowance by adopting artificial formulae. Therefore respectfully I.T.A. No.2126 & 2749/DEL/2013 118 following decisions of Honourable Bombay High court in CIT vs. Lokhandwala Constructions Industries Ltd. [ 131 taxman 810] and CIT V Reliance Utilities & Power limited [313 ITR 340] We reverse the order of the CIT (A) confirming the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.27.40 crores and direct the AO to allow this interest expenditure u/s 36(1) (iii) of the Act."
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 58 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M/S Modipon Ltd. on 24 November, 2017

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. MODIPON LTD. (No. 1) [2011] 334 ITR 0102- I.T.A. No.2126 & 2749/DEL/2013 98 BUSINESS EXPENDITURE--DEDUCTION ONLY ON ACTUAL PAYMENT--DISALLOWANCE ON GROUND THAT EXPENSES RELATED TO PRIOR PERIOD AND NOT PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR--TRIBUNAL FINDING ALL EXPENSES SETTLED IN CURRENT YEAR AND COVERED UNDER SECTION 43B(D)-- JUSTIFIED--INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, S. 43B(D).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 12 - Cited by 29 - R Gogoi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next