Income Tax Judgements

The respondent-assessee is a firm which came into existence on 25th June, 1992. On 23rd February, 1996, a search operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of another concern, viz. M/s A.R. Mercantile Private Limited. Duri

The assessee is a public limited company, classified by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a non-banking finance company. It is engaged in the business of hire purchase, leasing and real estate etc. The vehicles, on which depreciation was claimed, ar

The facts: The assessee, being the owner of 6000 fully paid up equity shares executed a deed of revocable transfer in favour of M/s Yogesh Chandra and Brothers Associates Under the deed, the assessee could, on completion of 74 months from the dat

In view thereof, the judgment and order in appeal in these cases is also set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on the merits of the case. The appeals are allowed but there will be no order as to costs.

Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case

The revenue has questioned the first appellate order on the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.21,63,393/- being the amount receivable from M/s Adk

Assessee company in this case is engaged in the business of manufacturing, designing and fabrication of aluminum and architectural products. In this case it was noted that the assessee has shown ` 3,87,74,848/- as mobilization advance under the head

Facts in brief:- The assessee is a Private Limited Company. It filed its return of income on 26.9.2009 declaring a loss of Rs.26,498/-. The assessee company had dividend income of Rs.41,82,220/-, which claimed as exempt under Section 10(34) of the In

the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in rejecting the appeal filed by the appellant against the assessment order dated 23 December, 2009 by alleging non appearance of the appellant and assuming that the

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and trade in colour TVs, air-conditioners, refrigerators, microwave oven, washing machine, compressors, vacuum cleaners etc. It emerges out from the