Search: section 68

3 results for “section 68”+ Section 43Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai44 Delhi36 Chennai35 Hyderabad21 Ahmedabad16 Bangalore15 Pune10 Chandigarh4 Jaipur3 Amritsar3 Cochin3 Kolkata3 Rajkot3 SC3 Telangana2 Patna2 Cuttack1 Surat1 Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)7 Section 32(1)4 Section 684 Disallowance3 Section 250(6)2 Section 402 Section 36(1)(iii)2 Section 142(1)2 Depreciation2 Addition to Income

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as well as the appeal filed the Revenue Department is dismissed and Cross Objection also stands disposed off

ITA 27/ASR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.38(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. R.L. Gupta (Ld. Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR)

Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68

68 is on the assessee, which has not furnished any material in the assessment proceedings. However, it is not clear if the AO had in any of the notices u/s. 142(1) required the assessee to support its’ claim qua the said loan with any material/ evidence. This does not appear to be the case as there is no reference

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JAMMU vs. M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO,, JAMMU ( J&K)

M/S. CONTINENTAL CONSTRUCTION CO.,,JAMMU vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (HQRS), JAMMU

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. SHIV RAJ SINGH BAWA, AMRITSAR.