Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.30 seconds)Section 14A in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cheminvest Limited vs Commissioner Of Income Tax-Vi on 2 September, 2015
1) Cheminvest Ltd. v CIT [378 ITR 33 (Del)/ 281 CTR 447 (Del)]
Major Metals Ltd vs Union Of India on 27 October, 2015
- per share. The addition was made which was challenged before
the Bombay High Court and the Bombay High Court confirmed the
addition. The ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the facts of
the appellant's case as the facts of this case and the facts of the
appellant's case are entirely different. In the said case the loans
were taken which were squared up by allotting shares at a
premium in the subsequent year whereas in the appellant's case,
no loan was taken but there is a direct investment made by White
Kite Investment Ltd, Mauritius in FCCDs for which complete
details are available. The A.O.'s reliance on the said decision of
the Hon'ble Bombay High Court is therefore a misplaced reliance.
4.4.13 It was further submitted that the facts of the appellant's case
speak for itself. The appellant, as already stated, has submitted all
the relevant and necessary details of the investments of Rs.62.44
crore made by White Kite Investments Ltd. The explanation so
offered by the appellant company by no stretch of imagination can
be termed as unsatisfactory so as to invoke provisions of section 68
of the Act. Thus, there is no applicability of the provisions of
section 68 in the appellant's case.
Section 69 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Cit vs Gangeshwari Metal Pvt Ltd on 21 January, 2013
The Coinage Act, 2011
Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iv vs Holcim India P. Ltd. on 5 September, 2014
2) CIT v. Holcim India (P) Ltd. [272 CTR 282 (Del)]