Others Judgements

The appellant had paid fees to a Management & Research institute on behalf of one of its director as training fees of director and had also paid salary to the director. Both were disallowed by the Assessing Officer during scrutiny. Aggrieved, the app

An assessee sold his depreciable business asset (a flat) for 35 Lakhs and computed capital gains u/s 50 at Rs. 12.52 Lakhs after deducting the WDV of the block of assets from the sale price received. However, as per the AO, the stamp duty value of th

The Appellant is a manufacturer of products falling under Chapters 56 and 57 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985. According to the Department, the Appellant had not paid Central Excise Duty on the intermediate product viz. “non-woven fabrics” falli

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