Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.36 seconds)Lufthansa Cargo India Private Ltd. vs Dcit [Alongwith T.D.S. Appeal Nos. 66, ... on 30 June, 2004
12. Admittedly, there is no seized incriminating materials found during the course
of search in this case, and without any evidence the AO has made additions of the
above expenses. The issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against the
Revenue by the decision of Special Bench in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics
Ltd., v. DCIT(2012) 181 ITR (Trib) 106 (Mum) (SB) as well as by the decision of
Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) supra. As the issue is
covered in favour of assessee, we confirm the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition.
This common issue of Revenue's appeals is dismissed.
Section 43 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 132 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 153C in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commr.Of Income Tax vs M/S Alom Extructions Limited on 25 November, 2009
"After hearing Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant
and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., we find that the Supreme
Court in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the
Sec. 43(B) of the income Tax Act, as introduced by Finance Act, 2003, was curative
in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April,
1988.
Finance Act, 2013
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Central ... vs Smt. Shaila Agarwal on 25 November, 2011
(emphasis supplied)
The said judgment which essentially deals with second proviso to Section 153A
of the Act also supports the conclusion, which we have reached hereinbefore.