Income Tax Judgements

We have considered the prayer for adjournment and have also gone through the orders and the Affidavit filed by the appellant company, we find that even the revenue authorities are aware that the assessee and its directors are involved in a number of

. The action of the learned DIT(E) rejecting grant of approval u/s 80-G of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by referring to object of general public utility and not considering the applicability object of medical relief is illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, un

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in granting relief in respect of addition u/s 41(1) of Rs. 30,49,113/- on account of sundry creditors for which no confirmations were filed during the course of assessment procee

The reference made by the Ld. A.O. to the Learned Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TPO-I(I), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. TPO’) suffers from jurisdictional error as the Ld. A.O. has not recorded any reason on the basis of which he re

The facts of the case of the appellant are very simple in the sense that the assessee firm has debited a total of Rs.8,21,885/- to its Profit & Loss a/c which are routine expenses like expenditure for income tax assessments, trade marks, and other le

The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that assessee received gift in the form of IMD of face value of US$ 1,50,000 from Mrs Hansa Agarwal, NRI, residing at Sharjah on 25.9.2005. Thereafter, the assessee prematurely encashed the said IMD o

At the time of hearing, ld A.R. submitted that assessee be allowed to withdraw his appeal. Learned D.R submitted that he has no objection to accept the prayer of ld A.R. In view of submissions of ld representatives of parties, we accept assessee’s pr

This appeal was fixed for hearing on 5.9.2012 and the same was informed to the assessee at the address as mentioned by the assessee against Item No. 10 of Form 36. However, on the date of hearing when this appeal was called upon for hearing, no one a

Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, neither assessee attended nor any adjournment request has been received. Thus, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal

Assessee was informed that matter will be heard on 17.09.2012. But, no one appeared on behalf of assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence th