Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 14A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Advocates Act, 1961
Section 198 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 309 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S Shreyans Industries Ltd on 15 November, 2013
However, on perusal of the order of the learned CIT (Appeals),
we see that after quoting the findings of the Hon'ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court in the case of Sriyansh Industries Ltd.
(supra), he comments as under :
Shreyans Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 4 May, 2005
18. T he Assessing Off icer is directed to apply the
r a t i o l a i d d o wn b y t h e H o n ' b l e P u n j a b & H a r y a n a
High Court in Shreyans Industries Ltd. Vs. C IT
( s u p r a ) wh i l e a d j u d i c a t i n g t h e i s s u e i n t h e p r e s e n t
c a s e af t e r e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n o f t h e i s s u e
raised. The ground of appeal No.1 raised by the
R e v e n u e i s a l l o we d f o r s t a t i s t i c a l p u r p o s e s .
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M R Jayaram (Huf) on 16 December, 2009
Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble
P &H High Court in the case of CIT vs. Siyaram Garg HUF
(2011) 49 DTR 126. In this case the AO had made an addition u/s
40A (2) of the I.T. Act on the ground that the appellant had paid
higher rate to its sister concern while purchasing the cotton and
waste. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the appellant. On further
appeal, the Hon'ble IT AT held as under:
C. I. T vs Sitaram Agarwal [Huf on 26 March, 2015
"2. That the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in law and on facts
in deleting the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/-, made
u/s 40A(2)(a) r.w.s. 37 of the l.T. Act, 1961 by the
A.O. out of salary paid to Managing Director,
relying upon the case of C1T Vs. Siyaram Garg
HUF(2011) 49 DTR 126 which is different from the
facts of the case. The A.O. had rightly made the
addition as per law and facts of the case."
1