Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.87 seconds)Section 148 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income Tax, New Delhi vs M/S Eicher Goodearth Ltd. on 15 February, 2022
"3.3 I have considered the submissions made by the appellant
and observations of the AO. It is very clear that the assessee does
not fall within the provisions of section 36(1)(viia) which applies to
the scheduled bank or a non-scheduled bank. As claimed by the
assessee it is not covered by the definition of non-scheduled bank
as defined in clause (i) of Explanation below clause (viia) of Section
36(1). Hence, the claim is not allowable under these provisions.
The amount is also not allowable u/s 37(1) because the provision
for NPA is not an ascertained liability at all for the purpose of
section 37(1). The decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case
7 I.T.A. No.618, 1785& 2014/Ahd/2007
of CIT v. Eicher Ltd (supra) was in the context of book profit u/s
115J / 115JA and therefore, it cannot be said that the NPA can be
treated as ascertained liability within the meaning of section 37(1).
If the NPA could be considered as allowable liability u/s 37(1) then
there would have been no need for the provisions of section
Section 234B in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 115J in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 115JA in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Zoeb Y. Topiwala on 22 August, 2005
), & CIT Vs. Zoeb Y Topiwala,284 ITR 379(Bom), CIT Vs.
S.Annamalai,258 ITR 675(Madras) and Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
their order dated 1.8.2007 in ITA no. 683/2007 in the case of CIT
Vs. Manish Bhambri, this appeal can not be entertained.