Income Tax Judgements

Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring income of ``1,12,277/- beside agricultural income of ``1,05,000/-,filed on 9th July, 2007 by the assessee, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s 143(2) of the Inco

The assessee has questioned first appellate order on several grounds involving two issues. Firstly as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO in treating and apportioning the entire foreign traveling expenses of Rs. 19,4

Despite sending notice by the registered post AD sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear nor any request for adjournment has been received. The notice has also not been received back unserved. Therefore, it is inferred that assessee is not i

Fact of the case is depreciation on block of asset.

In support of ground No. 3 the Ld. AR submitted that the counsel of the assessee had been appearing before the Ld. CIT(A) to cooperate with the first appellate authority and only on 15.3.2010 the counsel of the assessee could not appear before the Ld

During the year the assessee company had raised unsecured loans of ` 96,65,438/-, the source of which remains unverified in view of the facts that no details with regard to the same is available. Hence, the same are disallowed and added back to the i

In the present application, the assessee has contended that in the aforesaid order, a typographical mistake has crept in inasmuch as in para 10 of our said order, we have wrongly extracted the portion of para 3 of the CIT (A)’s order, taking it to be

the relevant facts as available from the concerned orders are that the assessee, during the year, was engaged in the business of plying of trucks/tankers to various oil companies and derived income from house property also. He declared income on nine

The brief facts about the case are that assessee is an individual and she filed her return of income for the Assessment Year 2007-08 declaring total income of Rs.1,66,425/-. The income consisted of salary income from Shashi International Pvt. Ltd. in

The appellant has raised following grounds of appeal:- (1) “The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred on the facts of the case and in law upholding disallowance of actual incurred expenditure of Rs.3,20,514/- being the management fee paid to ICICI Prud