CIT v. Sileman Khan

174 ITR 200Reported decision#16994 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2024.

Judgments citing CIT v. Sileman Khan

H.P.State Civil Supplies Corporation vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/56/2008HC Himachal Pradesh31 Dec 2024

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

…ee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability and rather the same was only contingent. In this behalf, reliance was placed on the judgment of CIT vs. Sileman Khan passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 174 ITR 200 and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Karnatka High -8- Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., reported in 174 ITR 340. c) Since the liability did not pertain to the relevant financial year, the deduction was not admissible. d) The sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- did not meet annual contribution payable by the assessee on the…

Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising P Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioneer of Income Tax, Hyderabad

ITTA/54/2009HC Telangana22 Apr 2021

Bench: T.VINOD KUMAR,M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

…ee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability and rather the same was only contingent. In this behalf, reliance was placed on the judgment of CIT vs. Sileman Khan passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 174 ITR 200 and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Karnatka High -8- Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., reported in 174 ITR 340. c) Since the liability did not pertain to the relevant financial year, the deduction was not admissible. d) The sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- did not meet annual contribution payable by the assessee on the…

The Commissioner of Incoe Tax III vs. Raj Breeders and Hatcheries (PVT) Liited

ITTA/37/2007HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

…ee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability and rather the same was only contingent. In this behalf, reliance was placed on the judgment of CIT vs. Sileman Khan passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 174 ITR 200 and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Karnatka High -8- Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., reported in 174 ITR 340. c) Since the liability did not pertain to the relevant financial year, the deduction was not admissible. d) The sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- did not meet annual contribution payable by the assessee on the…

Commissioner of income tax vs. M/s. R.K. Palace

ITTA/57/2008HC Telangana14 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

…ee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability and rather the same was only contingent. In this behalf, reliance was placed on the judgment of CIT vs. Sileman Khan passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 174 ITR 200 and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Karnatka High -8- Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., reported in 174 ITR 340. c) Since the liability did not pertain to the relevant financial year, the deduction was not admissible. d) The sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- did not meet annual contribution payable by the assessee on the…

Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/20/2011HC Telangana30 Mar 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Section 260Section 37Section 37(1)

…ee had no statutory recognition. b) There was no ascertained liability and rather the same was only contingent. In this behalf, reliance was placed on the judgment of CIT vs. Sileman Khan passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 174 ITR 200 and judgment passed by the Hon’ble Karnatka High -8- Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., reported in 174 ITR 340. c) Since the liability did not pertain to the relevant financial year, the deduction was not admissible. d) The sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- did not meet annual contribution payable by the assessee on the…