Income Tax Judgements

The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 47,59,846/- being payment made to the sub-contractors on the ground that identification of these sub-contractors are not proved without properly appreciating the facts of the case and law applic

Facts indicate that Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,98,64,646/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act against which assessee preferred appeal in which action of he Assessing Officer in regard to addition u/s 68 of the Act was challenge

These cases were listed for hearing before the Tribunal on 06-8-2012 and for this assessee was informed. Today i.e. on 06-8-2012 when the case was called on board, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has been filed

We first take up the dispute relating to additions of unsecured loans under section 68 of the Act. The AO during the assessment proceedings noted that the assessee who was engaged in the business of film production and marketing, had declared unsecur

As per a Supreme Court decision, objection to notice must be disposed of first and only thereafter assessment can be proceeded. The objections dated 16.3.2010 were disposed of by Income-tax Officer on 22.10.2010 and notice u/s 143(2) is dated 15.9.20

The Learned CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the amount offered during Survey u/s 133A carried out on 13/02/07 was not offered as any cash or other investments were recovered during the survey, but as there were mere entries without any narrat

The assessee is a partnership firm. It developed a residential housing project by the name of “Surendra Estate” at Chuna Bhatti, Bhopal. The assessee got the approval for the project from Bhopal Municipal Corporation on 07.05.2003. The project was st

In this case Assessing Officer noted that assessee had not attended proceedings in response to the notices dated 12.11.2009 and 23.12.2009, even after their proper service upon the assessee and has also not furnished any explanation. Assessing Office

Assessee took up the matter in appeal and challenged the action of Assessing Officer and it was submitted before first appellate authority that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Ceco Electronics and is engaged in the business of transformer manufac

The facts indicate that original assessment was completed on 29.03.2004 and it was reopened by recording reasons on 26.03.2008. As per assessee, there was no failure to disclose all material facts and since reopening was done on the basis of retrospe