9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,Adv. For Respondent : Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Shashi M. Kapila, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv. Mr. Tanvir Nayar, Adv. Mr. Pravesh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shivang Dubey, Adv. Mr. Vikas Mehta,Adv. ORDER We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 20.01.2004 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras in T.C. No.55 of 2001. Briefly s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 42.45 lakhs to the respondent company . Proceedings under the Gift Tax Act were initiated in respect of payment of Rs. 42.45 lakhs received by the respondent company. However, we are not concerned with the question of levy of gift tax under the present proceedings. The assessing officer treated the amount of Rs. 42.45 lakhs paid by the M/s Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd. to the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with the directions that may be given by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The matter was taken up before the High Court of Madras and the order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Madras High Court. The sole question which arises for our consideration is as to whether the sum of Rs. 42.45 lakhs paid by M/s Annamalaiar Textiles (P) Ltd. to the respondent company is liable to any capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
