Income Tax Judgements

n this appeal, the order passed by the ITAT confirming that of the Commissioner of Income Tax was questioned. The assessee had bought 3 flats, one in his own name, another in the name of his wife and his own and the third in the name of his wife. The

The assesse company is engaged in the business of distributing cable signals. It receives satellite signals from various channel companies like Star Den Media Ltd., U.T.V. Global Broadcasting etc. in the capacity of Multi System Operator. for which t

The assessee is a trustee in three different trusts. CIT(A) held that the trusts were not valid trusts since they did not come into existence in accordance with Section 6 of Indian Trusts Act” and its income should be taxed in hands of all the truste

In brief the facts are that in this case return of income was filed by the assessee declaring a loss of Rs. 19,906/-. The assessment was completed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the I.T.Act at an income of Rs. 12,42,412/- by making following disallowance

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A) has erred in annulling the re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 on the basis of change of opinion by the AO on the issue of ‘allowability of Sponsorship Expenses’ even when the AO did not

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of assessment order, we find that the assessment has been completed under sec. 143(3) of the Act. Notices under sec. 143(2) and/or under sec. 14

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee company is a financial company under the Interest Tax Act, 1974, liable to tax there under and if yes, then which portion of the income/receipts of the assessee company can be co

It was fairly conceded by the Ld.AR of the assessee that the issue involved is covered against the assessee by the decision of the special bench of the Tribunal rendered in the case of ACIT vs. Hindustan Mint & Agro Products Pvt. Ltd., as reported in

In all these three appeals by the assessee, the only ground raised is about the chargeability of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) on channel placement charges. The amount of channel placement charges paid by the assessee in the years under appeal is as under

Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that assessee’s assessment in question was framed u/s 143(3) making various additions alleging that assessee could not file necessary evidence ignoring the fact that sufficient time was not given to the assessee.