Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Dow Agrosciences P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 23 September, 2016 cites

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M/S. Exide Industries Ltd on 10 December, 2009

Subsequently Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP CC No.22889/2008 dated 27.06.2007 in the case of CIT vs. Exide Industries Ltd has held that, during the pendency of appeal, the assessee has to pay tax as if section 43B (f) is on the statute book. Accordingly, the ld. DR submitted that the disallowance of provision for leave encashment is required to be made u/s 43B(f) of the Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - K J Sengupta - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S Woodward Governor India P. Ltd on 8 April, 2009

29. The next issue contested by the revenue relates to the disallowance of bad debts claim of Rs.9.62 crores. The AO disallowed the claim on the reasoning that the assessee has not established that the debts have become bad. Before the Ld CIT(A), the assessee has submitted that the debts written off by it pertains to sales of earlier years and further it has been written off in the books of accounts. Accordingly the assessee, by placing reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TRF Ltd (2010- TIOL-15-SC-IT), contended that the bad debts claim should be allowed. Convinced with submissions made by the assessee, the Ld CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee. The revenue is aggrieved by the said decision.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 480 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders on 21 June, 2012

19. We have heard the parties on this issue. It is settled proposition of law that the Assessing Officer is required to compute correct total income and further deduction which is legally allowable to the assessee cannot also be denied. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (P) Ltd. (349 ITR 336) has held that the appellate authorities are entitled to consider new claim made subsequent to filing of return. Accordingly, we admit the additional claim put forth by the assessee and direct the Assessing Officer to consider the same in accordance with the provisions of sec. 43B of the Act.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 439 - S J Vazifdar - Full Document
1