Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)Section 10 in The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 40 in The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Article 7 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 37 in The Banking Regulation Act, 1949 [Entire Act]
Bharat Earth Movers vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka on 9 August, 2000
27. We find for every year the reduction of expenses claimed is based
on valuation determined as per actuarial valuation. Therefore, the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth
Movers v. CIT [245 ITR 428] squarely apply on the facts of the case in
Hand. There is no dispute that the excess payment made in the prior
years to Employees Gratuity Fund is now been adjusted against the
allowability of ₹.5,08,60,000/- arising for the financial year 2005-06. The
contention of the Ld. DR is that the assessee itself had added the amount,
is not accepted as the same has been done by the assessee out of the
abundant caution and has explained vide letters dated 08.10.2008 and
203.02.2010 and filed note dated 24.02.2010. Moreover, in the draft
assessment order the Assessing Officer himself has allowed the claim of
Page No. 20
ITA NOs. 4766, 4767 & 7010/MUM/2016
ITA NOs. 4787, 4788 & 7309/MUM/2016
(A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09)
The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.,
₹.5.08 Crores. Considering the facts in totality, we do not find any error
or infirmity in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), this Ground is dismissed.