Others Judgements

The assessee Nortel Networks India International Inc. is a company incorporated in USA, a leading supplier of hardware and software productsfor GSM Cellular Radio Telephones System. During the year underconsideration, the assessee has supplied teleco

The assessee had a piece of land which he had sold for Rs. 10 Lakhs and invested the sale proceeds in the bonds specified under Section 54EC.However, the market value of the land as assessed by the District Sub Registrar was Rs. 35 lakhs for the purp

A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 31.07.2008. Assessee filed returns pursuant to notice u/s 153A for the year under consideration declaring long term capital loss of ` 5,87,272/- on sale of flat. As

Assessee company engaged in the business of developing, buildingandimplementing hydroelectric projects on built, own and operate basis declared Nil income for the previous year ended on 31.03.2007.During the course of scrutiny proceedings the AO disa

It is very unfortunate litigation between the husband/petitioner and wife/respondent who are Advocates of the Supreme Court and of this Court. They got married on 25th January, 1996. However, in the year 2004, the husband, who is the petitioner herei

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 02.09.2011 of CIT-XIII, New Delhi pertaining to 2006-07 assessment year. At the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee as such the appeal was passed over. In the se

The facts very briefly are that the appellant-bank sanctioned Derivatives/Forward Contracts facility to respondent no.1 upto a limit of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (rupees two crores) only for the purpose of hedging foreign currency exposures by its letter date

In the Pension Scheme, several parameters for existing members, like date of birth of member in service and on calculating the age as on 15.11.1995 for categorizing them in groups are provided which was also considered from the date of joining of his

It is the say of the petitioner that they applied for a certified copy of the order on the same date, which was received on 12.11.2010 but filed the appeal on 31.1.2011. Thus, it is not in dispute that the appeal is barred by time and is even beyond

In the present case also, no obligation on the part of the respondents to frame the Rules, notwithstanding the impracticality thereof, is established. It is purely a policy matter. The Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Sethia Vs. UOI (1997) 6 SCC 573 hel