Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.44 seconds)Section 195 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
M/S. Rotork Controla India (P) Ltd vs Commnr. Of Income Tax, Chennai on 12 May, 2009
6.6.8 Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Rotork Controls (supra), Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT (245 ITR 428),
and the binding decision of Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for
A.Y. 2017-18 (supra), we hold that the disallowance of warranty provision
in the present year is unsustainable. Accordingly, the addition of
Rs.22,00,000/- is directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is allowed.
Dcit 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs Microworld Software Services P.Ltd, ... on 3 January, 2018
Similar views have been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in
Gujarat Microwax (supra) and Mc Fills Enterprise (supra).
Dcit Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs Yash Raj Films P. Ltd, Mumbai on 20 January, 2017
Similar views have been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in
Gujarat Microwax (supra) and Mc Fills Enterprise (supra).
Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore on 17 November, 2017
6.1.5 It is a settled legal position, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (327 ITR 456), that the
obligation to deduct tax u/s 195 arises only when the payment made to a
non-resident is chargeable to tax in India.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... vs Public Utilities Investment Trust Ltd. on 18 March, 1970
6.4.3 The assessee argued that disallowance u/s 14A cannot exceed exempt
income, as held in several judicial pronouncements. The assessee also
ITA No.796/Ahd/2025
10
relied upon numerous judicial precedents including CIT v. Reliance Utilities
& Power Ltd. (313 ITR 340, Bom.
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. on 5 September, 2014
), CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd. (366 ITR 505,
Bom.
The Dy. Cit., Circle-1(1),, Baroda vs Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals ... on 13 December, 2017
), CIT v. Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. (217 Taxman 343,
Guj.), and others. It was further pointed out that in Asst.Year 2012-13, on
similar facts, the CIT(A), Vadodara, had deleted disallowance u/s 14A in
assessee's own case.
M/S Godrej Investment Pvt. Ltd. (Now ... vs Dcit 14(1)(2), Mumbai on 26 November, 2021
6.4.8 We further note that the Assessing Officer has not recorded any
dissatisfaction regarding the correctness of the suo motu disallowance of
Rs.1,60,838/- made by the assessee in its return of income. Recording of
satisfaction is a mandatory precondition under section 14A(2) before
ITA No.796/Ahd/2025
11
invoking Rule 8D, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce
Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT (394 ITR 449, SC).