Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 153 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 43 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 36 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. vs Addl. Cit, Spl. Rg. 26 on 21 January, 2003
20. One the issue is decided by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the
case of Vijay Shree Ltd. Supra, where in it is held that the PF & ES are
paid on or before the due date of filing of return u/s.139(1) of the Act,
deduction in respect to the amount on which PF & ESI is so paid, is
allowable. In the present case the assesseehas paid the PF deducted
on account of employees contribution before due date of filing of return
u/s. 139(1) of the Act by the assessee and the details are available in
the written submission of assessee, hence, we dismiss this ground of
appeal of revenue."
Finance Act, 2013
C.I.T.,Mumbai vs M/S.Walfort Share & Stock Brokers P.Ltd on 6 July, 2010
The object of section 14A is not
allowing to reduce tax payable on the non exempt income by deducting
the expenditure incurred to earn the exempt income. In the case in
hand it is not the case of the revenue that the assessee has incurred
any direct expenditure or any interest expenditure for earning the
exempt income or keeping the investment in question. If there is
expenditure directly or indirectly incurred in relation to exempt income
the same cannot be claimed against the income which is taxable. For
attracting the provisions of section 14A- "there should be proximate
cause for disallowance which has relationship with the tax
exemptincome as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT
Vs. Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (2010) 326 ITR 1).
Therefore, there should be a proximate relationship between the
expenditure and the income which does not form part of the total
income. In the case in hand the assessee has claimed that no
expenditure has been incurred for earning the exempt income,
therefore, it was incumbent on the AO to find out as to whether the
assessee has incurred any expenditure in relation to income which
does not form part of the total income and if so to quantify the
expenditure of disallowance. The AO has not brought on record any
fact or material to show that any expenditure has been incurred on the
ITA No.2196-2197/Kol/2016 & CO 97/Kol/2016 A.Ys. 12-13 & 13-14
ACIT Cir-12(2), Kol. Vs. M/s Selvel Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Page 5
activity which has resulted into both taxable and non taxable income.
Therefore, in our view when the assessee has prima facie brought out
a case that no expenditure has been incurred for earning the income
which does not form part of the total income then in the absence of any
finding that expenditure has been incurred for earning the exempt
income the provisions of section 14A cannot be applied. Accordingly,
we delete the addition / disallowance made by AO u/s 14A r.w. Rule
8D). "
Commr.Of Income Tax vs M/S Alom Extructions Limited on 25 November, 2009
"After hearing Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appearing on behalf
of the appellant and after going through the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs.
Alom Extrusion Ltd. we find that the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second
proviso to the Sec. 43(B) of the Income Tax Act, as introduced by
Finance Act, 2003, was curative in nature and is required to be
applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988.
Such being the position, the deletion of the amount paid by the
Employees; contribution beyond due date was deductible by
invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the
Act.
1