Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 30 (0.34 seconds)
United Helicharters P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee cites

Sterling Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs Acit 5(3)(2), Mumbai on 3 October, 2019

provision of act and the legal position as enumerated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of lshikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. (supra). At the relevant point of time it was impossible on the part of the assessee to deduct tax on the income of non- resident. Admittedly, up to the insertion of explanation vide Finance Act, 2007, the assessee was under bona fide belief not to deduct tax and accordingly he acted as per law. Accordingly we allow the appeal of the assessee.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Gursharan Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors on 2 February, 1996

"The maximum of equity, namely, actus curiae neminem gravabit - an act of court shall prejudice no man, is founded upon justice and good sense which serves a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. The other relevant maxim is, lex non cogit ad impossibilia - the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The law itself and its administration is understood to disclaim as it does in its general aphorisms, all intention of compelling impossibilities, and the administration of law must adopt that general exception in the consideration of particular cases. (see U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Imtiaz Hussain [2006] 1 SCC 380, Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khagumsab v. Kumar [2006] 1 SCC 46, Mohammad Gazi v. State of MP [2000] 4 SCC 342 and Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee [1996] 2 SCC 459."
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 360 - N P Singh - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Revathi, C.P. Equipments Ltd. on 8 July, 1998

While dealing with question as to whether an assessee can be liable to pay interest for failure to pay advance tax during the year when the liability to pay tax had arisen on account of amendment to law which took place after the end of the year, Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Revathi Equipment Ltd. [2008] 298 ITR 67, reproduced and thereafter approved the reasoning contained in the following passage of the Tribunal order.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 27 - R J Babu - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.George Oakes Ltd on 6 June, 2007

7. A combined reading of the above provisions makes it clear that the assessee has to pay taxes in advance in respect of the total income of the assessee, which would be chargeable in a particular assessment year. Now before introduction of section 35DDA, the legal dictum was very clear that the assessee could claim expenditure incurred on account of payment made for the VRS by the assessee in view of the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. George Oakes Ltd. [1992] 197 ITR 288 (Mad.)
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 19 - P P Raja - Full Document
1   2 3 Next