Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.89 seconds)

Commissioner Of Income Tax Iv vs Sikandarkhan N on 2 May, 2013

3.1 The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI v. Crescent Exports Syndicate and Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Sikandarkhan N Tunvar respectively, have held that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would cover not only the amounts which are payable at the end of the previous year but also which are payable at any time during the year.
Gujarat High Court Cites 52 - Cited by 83 - A Kureshi - Full Document

Bhuwalka Steel Indus. Ltd vs Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Bd. & Anr on 17 December, 2009

We, as such, have no doubt in our mind that the Learned Tribunal realized the meaning and purport of Section 40(a)(ia) correctly when it held that in case of omission to deduct tax even the genuine and admissible expenses are to be disallowed. But they sought to remove the rigour of the law by holding that the disallowance shall be restricted to the money which is yet to be paid. What the Tribunal by majority did was to supply the casus omissus which was not permissible and could only have been done by the Supreme Court in an appropriate case. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in the case of Bhuwalka Steel Industries vs. Bombay Iron & Steel Labour Board reported in 2010 (2) SCC 273.
Supreme Court of India Cites 71 - Cited by 64 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Crescent Export Syndicate on 30 July, 2008

3.1 The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolkata-XI v. Crescent Exports Syndicate and Commissioner of Income-tax-IV v. Sikandarkhan N Tunvar respectively, have held that section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would cover not only the amounts which are payable at the end of the previous year but also which are payable at any time during the year.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 234 - P C Ghosh - Full Document
1   2 Next