Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (1.31 seconds)Section 271E in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 273B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 269SS in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Idhayam Publications Limited on 23 January, 2006
In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Idhayam
Publications Ltd. (2006) 285 ITR 221 (Madras), their lordships
dismissing the appeal of the revenue held that the transaction between the
assessee and the director was not a loan or deposit and it was only a current
account in nature and no interest was being charged for the transactions
made under the account, the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of the
Tribunal which deleted the penalty.
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
10. On perusal of paper book and citations relied by the authorities
below, we observe that in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs State of
Orissa reported as 83 ITR 26, the Hon'ble Apex Court provided a
guideline to the courts and quasi-judicial authorities which is being
reproduced as under:-
Chaubey Overseas Corporation vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 9 October, 2007
In this
connection, we may refer to the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court in Chaubey Overseas Corpn. vs
Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 218 CTR (All) 494:
Section 269 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Housing & Urban Development Corp. Ltd. ... vs Department Of Income Tax on 9 February, 2016
Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the payment
of cash of Rs.2,00,000/- by the appellant company to its
director was necessitated by any urgent requirement. The
case laws relied upon by the AR of the appellant are not
applicable to the facts of the appellant's case. For
instance in the cases of Canara Housing Development
Company vs. Addl.