Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.46 seconds)
M/S Hype Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mohali vs Dcit, C-6(1), Mohali on 29 November, 2018 cites

Avon Cycles Pvt. Ltd. vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 2 September, 1993

Respectfully following the above decision, no disallowance us 36(1)(iii) is attached in this case in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. (supra). We, therefore, ITA No.616/Chd/2018 M/s Hype Realtors Pvt Ltd, Mohali 10 do not find any justification on the part of the lower authorities' in making the impugned disallowance and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 47 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Hero Cycles Ltd., Ludhiana vs Addl. Cit, Ludhiana on 3 April, 2017

4. We have heard the rival submissions and have also gone through the record. In this case, there is no rebuttal of the factual position that the assessee was possessed of own sufficient funds to meet the investment in question. So far as the reliance of the Ld. CIT(A) on the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of 'Avon Cycles Ltd Vs. CIT' (supra) which has been further affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding bunch of cases with the lead case being 'Maxoppp Investment Ltd Vs. CIT' (supra) is concerned, the issue has come into consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'ACIT Vs. Janak Global Resources Pvt Ltd' ITA No. 470/Chd/2018 order dated 16.10.2018 , wherein, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee also considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Hero Cycles Vs. CIT' 379 ITR 347 (SC).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 22 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

G.C. Gupta & Ors vs N K. Pandey & Ors on 8 December, 1987

11. T he Hon'bl e apex c our t i n t he cas e of Goodyear Indi a L t d & Or s vs St at e of Har yana & A not her and St at e of Mahar as ht r a & Ano t her r epor t ed i n 188 IT R 402(1991 ) hav e hel d t hat a deci s i on on a ques t i on t hat has not been ar gued cannot be t r eat ed as a pr ecedent . T he Hon'bl e K er al a Hi gh C our t i n t he cas e of C IT vs K . Ramakr i s hnan (1993 ) 202 IT R 997 hel d t hat a pr e cedent i s an aut hor i t y onl y f or w hat i t act ual l y deci des an d not f or w hat ma y r emot el y or even l ogi cal l y f ol l ow f r om i t .
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 76 - A P Sen - Full Document
1