cites: 163818844

1 - 10 of 48 (0.29 seconds)

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizer ... vs Assessee on 28 December, 2011 cites

Section 80HHC in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 4421

Section 35D in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 847

Section 154 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 9300

Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 6904

Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 34400

Section 14A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]

Union of India - Section Cites 0 - Cited by 11357

R. Dalmia vs C.I.T., Delhi, New Delhi on 21 September, 1977

[1(b)] The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the legal principle, that onus u/s 36(l)(iii) lies on the assessee to prove the that each loan is used for the purposes of the business and there is no presumption in law that it is own capital or surplus funds that were diverted for non-business purposes. as settled in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT 114 ITR 654 (Bom), R Dalmia vs. CIT 133 ITR 169 (Mad), CIT vs. M S Venkateshwaran 222 ITR 163 (Mad), K Somasundaram & Brothers vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad) and CIT vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del) which was confirmed in principle by the Supreme Court in the case of Motor General Finance vs. CIT 267 ITR 381 (SC).

Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 157 - S M Ali - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M.S. Venkateswaran on 19 January, 1996

[1(b)] The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the legal principle, that onus u/s 36(l)(iii) lies on the assessee to prove the that each loan is used for the purposes of the business and there is no presumption in law that it is own capital or surplus funds that were diverted for non-business purposes. as settled in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT 114 ITR 654 (Bom), R Dalmia vs. CIT 133 ITR 169 (Mad), CIT vs. M S Venkateshwaran 222 ITR 163 (Mad), K Somasundaram & Brothers vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad) and CIT vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del) which was confirmed in principle by the Supreme Court in the case of Motor General Finance vs. CIT 267 ITR 381 (SC).

Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Visharad Automobiles Financiers (P) ... on 4 August, 2006

[1(b)] The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the legal principle, that onus u/s 36(l)(iii) lies on the assessee to prove the that each loan is used for the purposes of the business and there is no presumption in law that it is own capital or surplus funds that were diverted for non-business purposes. as settled in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT 114 ITR 654 (Bom), R Dalmia vs. CIT 133 ITR 169 (Mad), CIT vs. M S Venkateshwaran 222 ITR 163 (Mad), K Somasundaram & Brothers vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad) and CIT vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del) which was confirmed in principle by the Supreme Court in the case of Motor General Finance vs. CIT 267 ITR 381 (SC).

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 32 - Cited by 64 - Full Document

Motor General Finance Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 25 February, 2004

[1(b)] The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the legal principle, that onus u/s 36(l)(iii) lies on the assessee to prove the that each loan is used for the purposes of the business and there is no presumption in law that it is own capital or surplus funds that were diverted for non-business purposes. as settled in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT 114 ITR 654 (Bom), R Dalmia vs. CIT 133 ITR 169 (Mad), CIT vs. M S Venkateshwaran 222 ITR 163 (Mad), K Somasundaram & Brothers vs. CIT 238 ITR 939 (Mad) and CIT vs. Motor General Finance Ltd. 254 ITR 449 (Del) which was confirmed in principle by the Supreme Court in the case of Motor General Finance vs. CIT 267 ITR 381 (SC).

Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 41 - Full Document

1 2 3 4 5 Next