Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Section 46A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... vs Mst. Katiji & Ors on 19 February, 1987
3. The assessee has filed the appeal which is barred by limitation by two
days. The assessee explained that the two day delay was due to calculation of
dates for the months of July and August both of which are 31 days. He relied on
the judgment in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji 1987 AIR
1353 wherein it was held that if the appellant satisfies the Court that he had
sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the due date the same can
be condoned. Respectfully following the ratio of the judgment we hereby
condone the delay.
Section 6 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax Panchkula vs M/S Hry State Agricultural Marketing ... on 20 February, 2017
6. Ground No. 3 and 2 of ITA NO. 1427 and 2 & 2.1 of ITA No. 1428/CHD/2017
Addition under section 14A
6.1 The Assessing Officer has disallowed an amount of Rs. 2,26,398/- on
account of disallowance under section 14A as the assessee has invested Rs.
80,35,624/- in securities with the stock broker. On perusal of the record (Para 4.3
of A.O) we find that the Assessing Officer has not fulfilled the requirements of
Section 14(2) pertaining to non satisfaction. The AO has not given any reason to
re-compute the disallowance except relying on the Circular No. 5 of CBDT 2014
wherein it was directed to the field officers to disallow amount under section
14A even if the assessee has derived no exempt income. The applicability of
Circular has been nullified by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the
case of CIT vs. Lakhani Marketing (P&H High Court). Hence keeping in view the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court we hereby delete the addition made under
section 14A.
1