Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)
Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Kadapa vs Mayuri Constructions, Kadapa on 16 June, 2021 cites

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. on 1 October, 1997

5. The Ld. DR vehemently argued before us stating that the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous, and his finding are not substantiated with any evidence. The Ld. DR also relied in the case CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies Pvt Limited (1999) reported in 237 ITR 13. It was therefore pleaded that the order of the ld. AO may be reinstated. The Ld. AR on the order hand relied on the order of the Ld. CIT (A).
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 189 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad vs P.J. Chemicals Ltd. Etc on 14 September, 1994

7. Further, I find the decisions relied by the Ld.CIT(A) Viz., CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Limited reported in 210 ITR 830 is not on the issue. Moreover on merits, I find the order of the Ld. CIT (A) to be de void of merit because he has not given a categorical finding as to why the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act would not be attracted in the case of the assessee even though assessee had made cash payments exceeding Rs. 20,000/- aggregating to Rs. 21,94,715/-. In fact he has simply brushed aside the issue by stating that all those payments were made during bank holidays which falls under exceptions mentioned in Rule 6DD of the IT Rules, 1962 without giving a clear cut finding on that regard. Further since the Ld. CIT (A) has not obtained a remand report from the AO on the issue, his observations cannot be accepted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 265 - Full Document
1