Income Tax Judgements

Ground of appeal relates to the grievance of the appellant against the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.1,12,53,000/- on account of warranty and other expenses. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that, the identica

The fact of the case pointed in the following points: FOR THAT the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Jalpaiguri acted unlawfully in upholding the assessment order framed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Income Tax Officer,

In allowing credit of MAT of the previous year u/s 115JAA at `.56,05,585/-. (Pl. see Sl. No.22 of Intimation) only as against the sum of `.63,51,128/- paid as per Schedule Part B of TTI of ITR 6 of previous year resulting in not allowing the credit o

Facts indicate that the assessee is a partnership firm of two partners and doing the business of export of hardware items. The assessee purchases raw material and after assembling and doing the job work, the same are exported to foreign countries and

It appears that the assessee is not interested in getting the appeal prosecuted. Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default

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

Facts, in brief, as per the relevant orders are that return declaring income of `1,92,16,940/- filed on 29-09-2009 by the assessee, providing consultancy of automotive components, was selected for scrutiny with the service of notice u/s 143(2) of the

Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is a commercial bank having its Head Office in U.A.E. The assessee has two branches in India i.e. Mumbai and Bangalore. It is involved in normal banking activities including financing of foreign

There are several ground raised by Revenue as well as assessee please check the judgment to obtain the fact of the case.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), CIT(A) is bad, both in the eyes of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both