MSME Certified Income Tax Live Batch to commence from 21st January 2022. Limited Seats. Register Now!!

taskopad

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Do you know this tax rule!!!

Page no : 3

santhosh kumar (article student) (79 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

thanks for sharing

 

Nabeel (CA) (3288 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

Thanks a lot sir........ I didn't knew this rule............. Thanks for sharing.........

Gaurav (CA FINALIST) (66 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

But the TATA TEA JUDGEMENT WAS OVERRULED BY EXPL.1 OF SEC 37(1)

1 Like

manoj kumar (student) (41 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

Thanks sir for bringing the fact to our knowledge.

 

The decision given by the judge is very gud.Its right that ransom paid to save anyone's life is not the offence. This decision shows that how a right  interpretation can be derived.

The wrong intention of department is nullified by the court by giving a different definition to the provisions of section 364 A.

The refusal of deduction would have been the injustice to the Asseesee.

Thanks a lot again sir.

Harjeet (auditor) (57 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

thnx for sharing ...that gud

sharad rai (learner ) (178 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

IT IS NOT NECCESSARY THAT RANSOM AMOUNT IS TRUE TELL BY DEDUCTEE, IT ALSO TELL MAXIMUM AMOUNT, NO RECIEPT IN THAT TYPE OF CASES IS RECIEVED . HOW ;S THE AMOUNT JUSTIFIED.

CS Alok Mishra (Income Tax Practitioner)   (781 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

Strange but rational.

Prakash Ramani (B.com,CA) (276 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

thanks for sharing

1 Like

sanath (Chartered Accountant) (299 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

@ sharad rai.

You believe the honourable judge ruluing in favour of the assessee would not have been even this diligent?

You must understand that an amicus curae was appointed in this case.

 

Sanath

PREETI GUPTA (CA FINAL STUDENT) (126 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

amazing....

Rahul Gupta (Chartered Accountant) (644 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

Thanks for information

 

well i knew that already ....

Sudheer (JOB) (31 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

ya this was decided by high court (i think mum HC)

bt there is logic behind this....

as the employee is on duty.. its employeers responsiblity if ant think happen to them...

as we see in case of accident in factory or any kind of expenditure incured or given to employee for that. that also alowable exp. 

so i thnk HC take the right decision. n rather say good decision....

APOORV SAXENA (Chartered Accountant) (794 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

guyzz....i hav a doubt....!!

hum ise prove kaise karenge .......kya kiddnaper hume bill deha ???

 

hehehehhe !!

Sourav Banerjee MA,MSW (Shabda Bramha) (8842 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

It's a very fair judgement.

snehal (Student PCC ) (70 Points)
Replied 19 November 2011

Thank you Sir 

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  





Subscribe to the latest topics :

Search Forum:


expand_less