Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)

Exide Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India . on 7 January, 2015

27. We have heard the both the sides. From the impugned order in ITA No. 891/K/2013, we find that the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance as made by the Ld. AO on account of claim for provision for leave encashment. Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the deduction on account of provision for leave encashment was made on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Exide Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2007) 292 ITR 470 (Cal). However, it has come to our notice that subsequently Hon'ble Supreme Court has stayed this judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide order 08-05-2009 by following observations:-
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 146 - A R Dave - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 vs Hdfc Bank Ltd. on 5 September, 2014

In this factual scenario, we find that the decision reported in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 0505 (Bom) applies on all fours. In that decision it was held that when assessee's capital, profit reserves, surplus and current account deposits were higher than the investment in tax-free securities, it would have to be presumed that 8 ITA Nos. 1656 & 891/Kol/2013 DPSC Limited, AYs 2009-09 & 2009-10 investment made by the Assessee would be out of the interest-free funds available with Assessee, and the additions made by the AO under Section 14A of the Act by disallowing the expenditure, have to be deleted.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 686 - Full Document
1